Helpline: 0716 200 100

To champion the safety, security and wellbeing of Human Rights Defenders.

Of arrests and judicial persecution: the case of Mithiini squatters


Mithiini History

 Colonial land alienation

Mithiini was a settled area, and some of the residents there actually had their parents living in parts of the land even before independence. Nevertheless, white settlers took possession and ownership of several chucks of land in the area which they occupied until well after the independence years. One of the white settlers, Tom Frazier lived in the area until about 1976 when he left. The reversion of the land after he left remains truly unclear, but many families were actually left settled on the very land.

This is one perspective, but both formerly white settled areas and community settled areas in Mithiini have now been lost to unclear private owners who continue to subjugate and throw out genuine squatters who should be gazetted as the true owners of the land area.

Policy Changes and Land Allocations.

Mithiini did not benefit in the orderly adjudications and distribution of title deeds that ensured a peaceful transition of the land from the former white settlers to new owners. Community members recall that a surveyor known as “Kanyi” was directed by the then President Kenyatta in 1977 to demarcate the land, into five (5) acres each and issue titles but some people from neighboring region interfered with the procedure hence stalling the process. However, adjudication was completed in Ngililya (ithanga), Kaguku and Kirathani. This means that residents of Mithiini could get their land titles.

It is a fairly known history of the area that following the sub-divisions of the land in around 1976, local residents were disenfranchised at the expense of new landowners coming from outside the region, mainly from Lari Division.

As administrative readjustments were made, taking Mithiini sub-location to be part of Kakuzi location, community members lost their voice. New powerful groups emerged associated with government functionaries which made local administration turn a blind eye on the growing grievance of land grabbing and landlessness. Many residents lost their land and had their homes forcefully demolished to pave way to the new settlers. A census of residents soon after independence, of the so-called squatters showed that Mithiini at the time was home to about 600 people.

Consequently, the status of Mithiini residents being squatters have only weakened their claim and entitlement to land that they have occupied for more than 50 years now. A generation upon generation of law-abiding citizens have been born and buried in Mithiini.

There has been no infrastructural development in the area, no certainty of titles and no proper government investments in development plans for Mithiini. However, the hardworking residents have been productively engaged, farming horticultural produce, fruits, and subsistence crops.

Instead, to date, residents face intermittent evictions, usually in the hands of rogue machette wielding youth militia and other illegal land gangs. At least at one time around 2017, a shadowy group, with no know representation from Mithiini known as MITHINI SOCIETY claimed the entire parcels of land (now subdivided into plots) in the area, and had actually promoted them for sale, interalia;

  1. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1013
  2. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/850
  3. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1048
  4. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/922
  5. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1013
  6. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/860
  7. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/856
  8. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1089
  9. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1189
  10. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1093
  11. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1054
  12. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/465
  13. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/859
  14. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1093
  15. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/959
  16. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/1152
  17. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/831
  18. KAKUZI/KIRIMIRI/BLOCK 8/928

It is still unsure how adjudications, demarcations and titling of these lands were possibly accomplished. Not courts of law, not administrative bodies and not administration personnel from the area have clarified the issues to the residents.

Arrests, criminal harassments & ceaseless intimidation impacts of ‘land grabbing’ and landlessness in Mithiini.

Police stations and courts with jurisdiction on issues emanating from Mithiini area are awash with a myriad of complaints and proceedings touching on land disputes in the area. There is deep mistrust between community members pitting a section of residents against others, as some of them believe that a section of community members invite other powerful people from outside Mithiini to grab land in the area. The patterns of evictions have been accompanied with destructive tendencies involving burning of houses, raiding of livestock and destruction of crops.  Several residents have lost fruit crops and their animals to such gangs.

Wherever they are arrested, numerously are not permitted to record their statements. They can neither lay complaints of the land grab in the local police stations nor file cases in court because they are poor. State investigation bodies have not helped the residents much.  On occasions, some of the residents have been summoned by the area administration and cautioned against their civic activities questioning suspected fraudulent trends of land acquisition in the area. The entire Mithiini village lives in constant fears, unaware of when the police will feign next criminal and arrest them to give way to the new owners. In order to force them out of the land using charges in the criminal justice system, they are typically handed a litany of familiar charges such as shown below.

  1. False detainer contrary to section 91 of the Penal Code
  2. Destruction of property contrary to section 339 of the Penal Code
  3. Incitement to Violence contrary to Sec 96 of the Penal Code
  4. Assault contrary to Sec 251 of the Penal Code
  5. Creating disturbance contrary to Sec 95 of the Penal Code

Many reports show that some people not originally from Mithiini have land claims within the area. Although they do not live within the community, they occasionally visit the place or send unspecified agents to harass and intimidate residents. Some of the squatters have been forcefully evicted from their homes and have left the area altogether. It has not helped that wherever community members who are in actual possession of the land are attacked, often the local administration (and even the police) side with the attackers, and often because they are show some forms of title deeds. Residents highly believe that such title deeds are fraudulent and should be investigated.

Attempts to gain title to the land

 Community members have for a long-time petitioned authorities and leaders to intervene in their long running plea for land justice in Mithiini without success.

The local community members have in the past engaged with the human rights NGO group, Kituo Cha Sheria for a long time on this issue. In early 1990, the organization wrote to the Provincial Commissioner, Central Province pleading the case of the residents who in fact live in the land but have been denied ownership papers. On 22nd July 1997, the organization again reminded the Provincial Commissioner, Central Province that despite living in Mithiini for over 30 years, the families remained squatters and were living in fears of squabbles and unending tensions. Similar grievances and requests for interventions have been filed with non-government agencies including the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

In 2020, the Environment and Land Court at Murang’a dismissed on a technicality a petition brought before it by at least 2,200 residents of Mithiini for the land for adverse possession of the land. The Court advised the petitioners to show proper evidence to back their claims[1].

At the same time, mithiini residents have filed varying reports with Makuyu Police Station, among others, and even the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) on related complaints of police abuses touching on forced evictions and harassments of the residents. 

[1] See Judgment on Petition No. 1a of 2017 Environment & Land Court at Murang’a



Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com