By: Cyrus Kimanga
The hearing of a criminal case arising from a disputed luxury property sale in Nairobi’s Lavington estate proceeded today at Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi.
In the case, a property dealer is accused of obtaining millions of shillings through false pretences.
The suspect, Grace Kerubo Orioki, also known as Grace Kerubo Omambia Omwega, who trades as Nazziwa Investment Limited, is accused of defrauding Eunice Mbinya Musembi of Sh65 million in a transaction involving a residential house allegedly riddled with undisclosed structural defects.
Testifying before trial magistrate Rose Ndombi, Ms Musembi told the court that her family became interested in the property in July 2024 after it was advertised on social media.
Upon visiting the house along Kaputiei Road, they met the accused, who introduced herself as the seller.
She said negotiations culminated in an agreement to purchase the property for Ksh 75.5M with completion set within 90 days from August 2024.
Payments were to be made into a bank account held by Ms Omwega.
By the time the transaction ran into difficulties, the family had paid approximately Sh65 million, amounting to about 85 per cent of the purchase price.
She testified that the buyers requested vacant possession before completion to allow for a comprehensive inspection of the house.
However, the accused allegedly refused to vacate the premises, insisting that full payment be made first.
The standoff stalled the transaction, with neither party willing to shift its position.
Although the accused later vacated the property in November 2024, Ms Musembi said access remained restricted. She told the court that only a one-hour supervised inspection was permitted through the parties’ advocates.
During the visit, the family observed cracks on pillars, beams and the servants’ quarters, raising concerns about the building’s safety.
A structural engineer was subsequently engaged, and the resulting report indicated that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised.
The report was forwarded to the vendor through advocates, but no repairs or remedial measures were undertaken, the court heard.
After her request for a refund was declined, she reported the matter to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), leading to the criminal proceedings.
During cross-examination, the defence challenged alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, including discrepancies over the purchase price and access to the property. Defence counsel argued that the sale agreement was entered into voluntarily and noted that a related dispute is pending before another court, where the contested funds are reportedly being held. They further maintained that no official declaration has been made that the house is uninhabitable.
The hearing will continue on March 5.
