From power to court: Davis Chelogoi's battle for the Sh1.35 billion Lower Kabete land

 

Former Nairobi Provincial Commissioner Davis Nathan Chelogoi now finds himself locked in an intense, high-stakes battle over a multi-billion-shilling parcel of land in Lower Kabete, contending that his life is under threat. [File, Standard]

The turbulent legal battles facing former Nairobi Provincial Commissioner Davis Nathan Chelogoi have brought to the fore a sobering narrative about the transient nature of state power and the steep price of retirement after decades of public service.

As a towering figure of authority during the Moi era, Chelogoi now finds himself locked in an intense, high-stakes battle over a multi-billion-shilling parcel of land in Lower Kabete, contending that his life is under threat and that he is being targeted through what he describes as fabricated criminal charges designed to strip him of everything he built over a lifetime.

For Chelogoi, however, the fight has become painfully personal: an investment he says he made while serving the Government has transformed, decades later, into a criminal case in which he risks losing the property and, if convicted, facing imprisonment on Wednesday this week.

What began as a dispute over ownership has since widened into a complex legal saga involving two titles, competing claims and a paper trail running through the Ministry of Lands, criminal proceedings, applications before the High Court, appeals before the Court of Appeal and a civil ownership dispute that has run for years.

At the centre is a 7.39-hectare parcel in Lower Kabete, Nairobi, valued at about Sh1.35 billion, known as LR No. 18485.

Two competing titles have emerged over the property, one associated with businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah and Hitenkumar Amritlal Raja, and another registered in Chelogoi’s name.

Throughout court proceedings, Chelogoi says his connection to the property dates back to 1995, when he was a senior Government administrator and that the land was allocated to him at a premium of Sh2.4 million.

He maintains that he has occupied the property continuously since then and holds title LR No. 18485 IR 232908.

He argues that he did not manufacture a title decade later as alleged by the state in a criminal case before Milimani Law Court, but acquired the property through the Government land allocation system and subsequently relied on official records and validation by Lands officials.

But the history of the competing claim stretches back even further.

In 2009, Shah and Raja went to court against the late businessman Jacob Juma, the Commissioner of Lands and the Registrar of Titles over the property.

The dispute at the time did not initially involve Chelogoi.

Shah and Raja alleged that Juma had obtained a competing title fraudulently, while Juma maintained that the property had been allocated to him and that he had occupied it after registration.

The case exposed the unusual history of the land and the existence of competing documents within the Lands Registry.

Ashok’s claim to the property was traced through Liney Company Limited.

He claims that the Commissioner of Lands issued Liney with a letter of allotment dated March 12, 1993, before a grant was registered in the company’s favour on December 5, 1994.

He adds that on November 18, 1994, Kiran Kumar Shah and his wife, Dipti Kiran Shah, bought Liney Company Limited, including its assets, for Sh16 million, with its principal asset being the Lower Kabete property.

The land was later sold to Ashok and Raja, who testified that they purchased it from Liney in 2007 for Sh33 million, with possession handed over in March that year.

That transaction became the foundation of Shah and Raja’s claim.

In its July 28, 2022 judgment, the Environment and Land Court found in favour of Shah and Raja, declaring them the legal owners of the property and finding the rival title held by Juma to be fraudulent.

But there was a crucial distinction: Chelogoi was not an original party to that case.

Court records indicate that he later sought to join the proceedings as an interested party and challenged the outcome before pursuing his own claim to the property.

Chelogoi subsequently filed ELC Case No. E070 of 2023, seeking to establish his claim on the basis of his title.

That case brought the former administrator directly into the long-running ownership dispute and triggered another round of litigation.

In April 2024, Environment and Land Court Judge Judith Omange issued status quo orders directing that Chelogoi remain in occupation pending determination of the case, while restricting activities including logging, construction and letting of the property.

The judge also directed Lands officials not to alter records relating to the competing titles.

Shah and Raja challenged the orders before the Court of Appeal, arguing that they had already obtained judgment in their favour and that Chelogoi’s title had been issued during the pendency of the earlier proceedings.

In October 2024, a three-judge Court of Appeal bench comprising Justices Gatembu Kairu, Aggrey Muchelule and Weldon Korir stayed the ELC proceedings and restrained Chelogoi from interfering with the Lands Office records relating to Shah and Raja’s claimed ownership.

“The 1st respondent (Chelogoi), whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever, is hereby restrained by an order of injunction from dealing with or interfering with the Lands Office records of the applicants’ ownership of the suit property,” the court ruled.

The land dispute then crossed from the civil courts into the criminal justice system.

Chelogoi and former Assistant Deputy Director in the Lands Administration Office Andrew Aseri Kirungu were charged over allegations relating to the registration of the property.

The prosecution alleges that between May 2020 and June 2021, the two conspired to defraud Shah and Raja of the 7.39-hectare parcel by allegedly procuring its registration in Chelogoi’s name.

Kirungu faces additional allegations, including abuse of office. Both men deny the charges.

More than 18 prosecution witnesses testified, while the DPP presented 19 witnesses and 136 documentary exhibits, including evidence from current and former Lands officials, survey officers and senior officials in the land administration system.

In July 2025, Chief Magistrate Dolphina Alego ruled that the prosecution had established a case requiring the two accused to defend themselves.

“Having analysed all the evidence tendered in this case, I find that the prosecution has established a case against each of the two accused persons to warrant this court placing them on their defence,” Alego ruled.

Chelogoi has nevertheless sought the recusal of the magistrate alleging bias, and has separately challenged the criminal proceedings through judicial review.

The magistrate declined to step aside, while later proceedings before the High Court addressed the procedural issues surrounding the recusal application.

In his judicial review case, his argument has remained consistent: that a dispute fundamentally concerning ownership of land is being pursued through criminal proceedings, with the criminal justice system allegedly being used to achieve the illegal takeover of his property.

He described a police operation at the property as a “commando-style operation”, alleging that officers entered the property in the early hours of July 31, 2025, and arrested some of his workers.

He further alleged that the criminal process was being used as a “ruse” to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court and remove him from the property.

Chelogoi has also relied on an allotment letter dated January 31, 1995, which he says demonstrates that he was legitimately allocated the property.

In his defence in the criminal case is that he was not a fraudster who manufactured a title, but a legitimate owner who acquired the property through the Government system and has occupied it for decades.

“I have found myself in a strange dispute between myself and the complainant, and it’s a dispute I have been in for three years now,” he told the court during is defence hearing.

He argued that the criminal proceedings were being used to undermine his ownership.

“All these multiple charges are intended to defeat the title I have. And so I’m here now to provide concrete evidence as to the ownership,” he said.

The case, he said, had taken an emotional and social toll.

“I didn’t expect it. I’m so devastated by this matter. Despite the toll, I have remained resilient. I have appeared in this court for almost two years now. I have never missed an occasion.”

He added that during his 40 years in public service he had never faced such an indictment.

Shah, while rejecting that narrative, described himself and Raja as the bona fide legal and registered proprietors of the property, maintaining that Chelogoi has no legal or beneficial interest in it and that the courts had already declared them as the lawful owners.

The original civil proceedings involved the Commissioner of Lands and Registrar of Titles, placing the administration of land records at the heart of the controversy.

Now, all eyes turn to Wednesday, October 7, 2026, when the court is expected to deliver its judgment, a decision that could determine whether Chelogoi’s decades-old claim to the property survives, or whether the land dispute will culminate in a criminal conviction.