MUHORONI, Kisumu July 24 –There was tension in Muhoroni Township after the officer in charge of the area police post, Titus Sirma, stormed a disputed parcel of land in the company of his officers and armed youths.
Curious members of the public demanded to know his mission, yet the land parcel is at the centre of a legal dispute at the High Court in Kisumu.
Irate members of the public demanded that he produce a court order allowing him to go into the parcel in question.
At the centre of the legal tussle is a senior police officer, namely Evans Abondo, and two businesswomen in Muhoroni, namely Rahab Obange and Susan Matoka.
Obange is also charged in a criminal court at the Tamu law courts about the disputed parcel after she allegedly double sold the parcel in question to Mrs Matoka and Mr Abondo, hence attracting a charge of obtaining by false pretences.
At the civil division at the Tamu law courts in Muhoroni earlier, senior principal Amos Mokoros found that the parcel of land in question legally belongs to Susan Matoka who had earlier purchased it from Rahab Obange.
According to Mokoros’s finding, Obange, in turn, sold the parcel to Evans Abondo before the earlier transaction with Mr Matoka was completed.
Mr Abondo has since moved to the High Court in Kisumu to appeal the decision of the lower court before Lady Justice Esther Asati of the Land and Environment Court.
According to Mokoros’s findings, Obange sold the parcel to Evans Abondo before the earlier transaction with Mrs. Matoka was completed.
Mrs Matoka moved to court and sought the court’s indulgence over the breach of contract by Mrs Obange.
The magistrate noted that on September 17 2021, Obange, who was the defendant in the suit, agreed to sell the plaintiff the whole parcel of land for Sh 600,000.
He said that the plaintiff was to pay a deposit of Sh120,000 on the date of the agreement, and a balance of Sh480,000 sometime in February 2022.
At that time, the plaintiff had made a payment of Sh 330,500, leaving a balance of Sh 269,500, which the defendant refused to collect, thus amounting to a breach of contract.
Mokoros said that the plaintiff later learnt that she had been shortchanged when the second defendant started putting structures on the parcel claiming that it had been sold to him.
According to the plaintiff, there was a breach of contract and a failure of the first defendant to transfer the parcel to her and accept part of the purchase price.
The second defendant said that he was just an innocent buyer but did not produce such evidence in court.
Abondo did not equally produce a sale agreement between him and the first defendant, nor did he produce evidence of ownership via a phone
He said the plaintiff has shown through SMS messages and Mpesa mobile statements that she was willing to pay the outstanding balance.
The court therefore ordered the first defendant to complete the sale and also issued a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant by himself, his agent employee or servant from occupying/dealing with the said property whatsoever.
Mokoros further ruled that the costs of the suit be paid by the first defendant.
