Kamlesh Pattin dragged in forgery related case involving land worth Sh10billion, sued alongside the DPP

The son of the late chief spymaster James Kanyotu has sued the Director of Public Prosecutions on accusations that he failed to prosecute suspects who forged documents relating to his family property worth Sh10billion.

In an application filed in court, Willy Kihara Kanyotu through Ruiru Njoroge and Co Advocates, claims that he is a beneficiary of the Estate of James Kanyotu (deceased) who among other properties was the majority shareholder of a company by the name Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited.

Kihara says Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited owns several properties, key being parcel of land title number LR No. 11261/76 located within Ruiru township.

“The mentioned parcel of land was illegally and fraudulently transferred to third parties while the parcel of land and the registered owner company were subject of a succession cause, being High Court Succession Cause Number 1239 of 2008 Estate of James Kanyotu(deceased)”, he states in court documents.

He alleges that the illegalities involved forgery and use of fake documents in the conveyancing process, forged sale agreement, forged Land Control Board Consents and forged acknowledgement letters.

The Petitioner and other beneficiaries of the Estate of James Kanyotu lodged a complaint with the director of criminal investigations in regards to the criminal actions of forgery where the DCI carried out lengthy investigations spanning over four years and presented reports including forensic reports.

Kihara says in court documents that the investigations confirmed that fake and forged documents were used to fraudulently transfer the didputed parcel of land.

He adds the DCI allegedly forwarded its investigations and reports to the DPP for further actions that being prosecution of the culpable parties.

“The DPP in unexpected turn of events declined to prefer charges against the culpable parties and advised that the dispute involving the illegal and fraudulent transfer of the parcel of land is a family dispute and not criminal”, he claims.

He adds that the DPP’s advise is despite the fact that the DCI has already established that fake and forged documents were used to transfer the parcel of land a parcel in dispute which is currently worth over Sh10 billion.

The Petitioner has requested the Respondents to reconsider their misdeeds to no avail.

“The Petitioner made a complaint to the 2nd Respondent in regards to the criminal forgery and use of fake documents to transfer the parcel of land title number LR No. 1126/76. The 2nd Respondent investigations established that the Petitioner’s allegations and complaint was true and justified, however, the Respondents have refused to prefer criminal charges against the culpable parties.

The Respondents’ actions are an affront to the Petitioner’s right to a fair hearing, because, it denies him the opportunity to have his day in court as guaranteed by the constitution”, he states.

Kihara alleges the DPP is in breach of provisions of the law as it has failed and deliberately declined to execute its mandate despite the fact that it has been presented with clear evidence of criminal culpability by the

In his affidavit before court, Kihara says sometime in the year 2012 a company by the name Trendsetters investments Limited fraudulently transferred the disputed parcel of land into its name and thereafter it again transferred the parcel of land to its associate company by the name Marriot Africa International Limited.

“I know of my own knowledge that the two companies are proxies and purpose vehicles used by one Kamlesh Pattini to intermeddle with my late father’s estate”, he claims in his affidavit.

He adds that the search on the two companies share the same physical and postal address which belongs Kamlesh Pattin.

He says he has met Pattin on various occasions.

Kihara claims  Trendsetters Investments Limited and Marriot Africa International Limited used a forged sale agreement dated 19 April 2012 forged Land Control Board Coments dated 26 July 2012 and 6 June 2014 to transfer the disputed parcel of land into their names.

Kihara has also asked the court to note that the official of the Land Control Board Ruiru denied the Land Control und Consents prosented by the companies and indicated that they had not bound the said consents.

He wants an order declaring that the Respondents’ actions of failing to institute criminal charges against parties who forged and uttered false documents in the transfer of parcel of land title number L.R 1126/76 is a breach of his constitutional rights

“An order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to institute criminal charges against the culpable parties who forged and uttered false documents in the transfer of the parcel of land title number L.R 1126/76”, the documents read.

He also wants an order directing the DPP to provide the Petitioner with a detailed report of how it arrived to the impugned decision of not instituting criminal charges against the parties who forged and uttered false documents in the transfer of parcel of land.