Two directors face charges over a Ksh25 million deposit for land in Karen.
Two company directors denied obtaining money by false pretences after a buyer paid Ksh25 million for land that never changed ownership.
Two company directors face charges in a Karen land fraud case involving a buyer’s Ksh25 million deposit. They pleaded not guilty to obtaining money by false pretences at the Milimani Law Courts on November 9, 2026.
The court granted them a Ksh100,000 bond or Ksh50,000 cash bail. Their arraignment followed their arrest on November 6, after investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
Karen land fraud case centres on failed transfer
According to the DCI, the complainant agreed to purchase the property on March 30, 2026. The roughly 0.2042-hectare parcel lies off Comboni Crescent in Karen, Nairobi, and carried a Ksh45 million price.
The buyer paid Ksh25 million upfront while awaiting the start of the ownership transfer process. However, the transfer did not happen, prompting the complainant to report the matter to police.
Detectives from the DCI’s Land Fraud Investigation Unit investigated the transaction and confirmed that the accused received the deposit. They also found discrepancies involving the property’s boundaries, which led the seller to seek fresh subdivision of neighbouring parcels.
Boundary changes altered purchase terms
The proposed subdivision changed the original terms of the purchase, according to the investigation. The buyer had paid the deposit based on the existing title and the parcel’s measurements.
Despite the proposed changes, the property remained under the company’s ownership months after the payment. As a result, the complainant’s purchase remained unresolved, without assurance of ownership after paying the deposit.
After completing their inquiries, detectives forwarded the case file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The prosecution office then directed that the two directors face charges of obtaining money by false pretences.
The DCI alleges that the directors took the buyer’s money without delivering the property. Both directors denied the charge when they appeared in court.
