Makadara MP George Aladwa faces an EACC suit over disputed Nairobi land.
The High Court has dismissed objections by Makadara MP George Aladwa and other defendants, allowing the disputed Nairobi land case to proceed to trial.
The High Court has cleared an EACC land recovery case against Makadara MP George Aladwa to proceed. The ruling rejects a bid by the MP and other defendants to halt proceedings over disputed Nairobi property.
Justice Mohammed Kullow dismissed their preliminary objection in a ruling delivered on November 9. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission can now pursue its suit at a full hearing.
EACC sued Aladwa, a private company, members of his family and a SACCO, alleging fraud and illegal acquisition. The ruling allows the case to continue rather than determining ownership of the property.
Court upholds mandate in EACC land recovery case
The defendants argued that the suit was incompetent and legally defective, and asked the court to strike it out. They also challenged EACC’s authority, saying it had assumed functions constitutionally assigned to the National Land Commission.
However, EACC relied on Section 11(1)(j) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act to defend its role. It argued that the provision authorises court proceedings to recover and protect public property.
Justice Kullow agreed with the commission, finding that the NLC’s mandate did not bar EACC from bringing such proceedings. He also rejected a challenge to the authority of EACC’s lawyer to institute the suit. The judge found that the advocate held a valid practising certificate and met the Advocates Act’s requirements.
Fraud allegations require evidence at trial
The defendants also argued that EACC had filed the suit outside the 12-year limitation period for land recovery claims. However, the judge declined to declare the case time-barred at the preliminary stage because it involved allegations of fraud.
Determining when the commission discovered the alleged fraud would require examination of evidence, the court found. That question therefore could not support terminating the suit before a hearing.
Similarly, the judge said evidence would be necessary to assess whether EACC had adequately investigated the property transactions. The court would also need evidence to determine whether the suit amounted to an abuse of court process.
Justice Kullow concluded that the defendants had not established grounds to end the case before trial.
