Mandera governor Mohammed Adan Khalif has suffered a setback after a court refused to lift orders blocking him from resuming construction of 160 housing units on a disputed Nairobi land linked to a public school.
Instead, the Environment and Land Court trimmed the duration of the freeze imposed in February 2026 from six months to 60 days, citing the advanced stage of the probe and the need for proportionality.
The court declined to lift preservation orders obtained by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) but found the full statutory period unnecessary in the circumstances.
‘The preservation orders issued on February 2, 2026, are hereby varied and shall remain in force for a period of 60 days,’ the court ruled, partially allowing an application by Mr Khalif to vary the orders. This means he cannot sell, develop, or deal with the land for now as the EACC investigation remains intact, though the ruling limits his financial exposure.
The land is also being claimed by North Highbridge Primary School, in Parklands, Nairobi, which wants the court to examine the veracity of Mr Khalif’s title deed and direct the Land Registrar to revoke the same.
Court filings show that in March 2025, Mr Khalif and an entity called Asili Hills Apartments, started construction of 160 residential housing units in a 10-storey building on the contested portion of the land.
Documents further reveal that Mr Khalif acquired the land in February 2021 from Mr Richard Maoka Maore at Sh140 million. This was a year before he was elected governor.
The land was later approved for development, with construction of a multi-storey residential project beginning in 2024.
The ruling marks a turn in the dispute over land parcels near the school, where construction of Mr Khalif’s residential flats had been halted.
The EACC had secured ex parte orders barring any dealings on the land, arguing the parcels were irregularly carved out of public land reserved for a school and social hall.
The commission traced the land to L.R. No. 209/8262, originally allocated to Nairobi City Council for a public school, and adjoining parcel No. 745207 reserved for a social hall.
Investigators said the parcels under probe were created from that public utility land and later transferred through several owners before reaching Mr Khalif.
EACC argued the original allocations were based on ‘unapproved and unregistered’ development plans, rendering subsequent titles invalid.
Mr Khalif, however, told the court he lawfully purchased the property in 2021 for Sh140 million after due diligence and confirmation of a clean title.
He said he was the fourth registered owner and that no previous titles had been challenged for over three decades.
He further argued that the preservation orders were irregular, punitive, and issued without giving him a hearing, causing major financial losses.
Through a quantity surveyor’s report, he estimated potential losses of Sh124.8 million over six months due to halted construction, rising costs, and contractual obligations.
The governor also claimed the dispute was already before another court in a separate suit filed by the school’s management, raising concerns of parallel proceedings.
But the court rejected that argument, finding the EACC case was investigative and distinct from the school’s civil claim.
‘Although the two proceedings relate to the same parcel of land, they are based on different causes of action, involve separate parties, and seek fundamentally different remedies,’ Justice Teresiah Murigi said.
The court also declined to remove Mr Khalif from the case, holding that his ownership placed him at the centre of the dispute.
‘His presence is therefore necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues,’ the court stated.
On the legality of the preservation orders, the court upheld the EACC’s powers to seek such orders without prior notice under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
It noted the law allows temporary restrictions to prevent the disposal of suspected proceeds of corruption while investigations continue.
“The jurisdiction conferred under Section 56 is sui generis. It establishes a unique statutory procedure that differs from the usual interlocutory regime outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules. The ‘application’ may be made ex parte,’ the court said, affirming the legality of the initial freeze.
However, the court found that the EACC had already conducted substantial investigations, reducing the need for a prolonged freeze.
‘The investigator provided a detailed account of the history of the suit property and the investigation conducted, including the grounds for suspecting that the property was unlawfully acquired. This thorough level of investigation shows that the investigations are already advanced and not merely speculative,’ the court observed.
It also weighed the competing interests between public interest and property rights, emphasizing that restrictions should not last longer than necessary.
‘This court is satisfied that this is a proper case for the exercise of its discretion to vary the duration of the preservation orders to ensure that such a period is reasonably necessary to facilitate investigations,’ the court ruled.
It directed that the case be placed before the judge handling the related school case for further directions, signaling a possible consolidation of issues. At stake is whether the land remains in private hands or is recovered as public property.