Court sends decade-long Sh1.3billion Loresho land tussle to original Magistrate for final determination
A Nairobi court has ordered that a long-running and highly contested Sh1.3billion Loresho land dispute in Nairobi involving businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah and former Nairobi administrator in the defunct Provincial Administration Davis Nathan Chelogoi be returned to the original trial magistrate, in a move expected to hasten the conclusion of the case.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani Magistrate’s Court, Chief Magistrate L. O. Onyina directed that the matter be placed back before Magistrate Dolphina Alego, who had substantially heard the case before her transfer.
The court emphasised the importance of judicial continuity, noting that the case had already reached the defence hearing stage.
“It is better that it be heard and concluded by the trial magistrate before whom it commenced and reached defence hearing stage,” the court ruled.
The decision was anchored on Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines how proceedings should continue when a judicial officer is transferred.
The court underscored that a succeeding magistrate can only take over a matter after complying with strict legal requirements, including informing the accused of their rights.
According to court records, no magistrate had formally assumed jurisdiction over the case following Magistrate Alego’s transfer, meaning the matter could still be reassigned administratively.
The court clarified that interim mentions before another magistrate did not constitute a formal takeover of the proceedings.
The dispute centres on ownership of a prime parcel of land identified as LR No. 18485 (IR 64011) in Lower Kabete, Nairobi.
The case is part of a broader legal battle spanning more than a decade and involving multiple courts, including the Environment and Land Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Previous rulings have already affirmed ownership of the property in favour of Shah.
In July 2022, the Environment and Land Court declared him the lawful owner, a position that has been reinforced by the Court of Appeal, which also issued orders restraining any interference with land registry records linked to the property.
Parallel criminal proceedings have also been instituted against Chelogoi and another accused person.
They face charges including conspiracy to defraud, forgery and forcible detainer under the Penal Code, in relation to the alleged fraudulent acquisition and registration of the land.
The prosecution has already closed its case after presenting 18 witnesses and more than 130 documentary exhibits. Defence hearings had commenced prior to the transfer of the trial magistrate.
The court also addressed procedural objections raised by the defence, including claims of improper transfer of the case.
It ruled that case allocation is an administrative function of the judiciary and cannot be influenced by litigants, stressing that parties do not have the right to choose the judicial officer presiding over their case.
Additionally, the court noted that an application seeking the recusal of the trial magistrate had not been formally withdrawn and remains pending, further supporting the decision to have Magistrate Alego resume conduct of the matter.
The ruling reinforces the principle that cases at an advanced stage should not be restarted or reassigned unnecessarily, as doing so could compromise fairness and efficiency.
The court warned that failure to comply with procedural safeguards under Section 200 could render proceedings a nullity.
