A former Provincial Commissioner has been convicted in a high-value land fraud case involving a 7.39-hectare property in Nairobi’s Lower Kabete area, bringing a protracted legal battle over ownership of the Sh1.35 billion parcel to a significant turning point.
Milimani Chief Magistrate Dolphina Alego on Friday, October 16, 2026, found former Nairobi Provincial Commissioner Davis Nathan Chelogoi guilty on five counts arising from allegations that he fraudulently acquired and registered the property in his name.
The court found that documents presented to support Chelogoi’s claim to the land, including a land registrar’s signature and official stamp, were forged.
In her ruling, Magistrate Alego said the evidence established Chelogoi’s guilt on all five counts against him, which included conspiracy to defraud, forcible detainer, forgery and uttering false documents.
The conviction followed a lengthy trial involving conflicting ownership claims, disputed title documents, testimony from government officials and forensic examination of records used in the contested registration.
The magistrate ordered Chelogoi to remain in custody pending mitigation and sentencing, scheduled for November 2, 2026. She also directed the Chief Land Registrar to cancel parallel title deeds and registration details relating to the property.
The ruling represents a major development in a dispute that has exposed the complexities surrounding competing land ownership documents and the role of public officials in maintaining the integrity of Kenya’s land registration system.
Chelogoi’s co-accused, former Assistant Deputy Director of Lands Administration Andrew Aseri Kirungu, was acquitted after the court found that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to establish his criminal responsibility.
“The evidence against him is insufficient to warrant a conviction,” Magistrate Alego ruled, giving Kirungu the benefit of the doubt.
The contrasting outcomes underline the court’s assessment that the evidence against the two accused persons did not justify the same verdict.
How the Sh1.35 billion land dispute unfolded
At the centre of the criminal proceedings is land parcel LR No. 18485, measuring approximately 7.39 hectares along Lower Kabete Road in Nairobi.
The property is claimed by businessmen Ashok Rupshi Shah and Hitenkumar Amritlal Raja, who told the court they purchased it from Lima Company Limited under a sale agreement dated January 25, 2007, for Sh32 million.
The businessmen relied on a chain of ownership documents to establish their claim, with their case receiving support from an earlier Environment and Land Court judgment delivered on July 28, 2022, which affirmed their ownership of the property.
The prosecution alleged that between May 2020 and June 2021, Chelogoi and Kirungu conspired to deprive Shah and Raja of the land by facilitating its registration in Chelogoi’s name.
The dispute subsequently developed into a criminal case examining whether the documents used to support the former administrator’s claim were authentic and whether the registration process had been manipulated.
Prosecutors called 19 witnesses, including land registrars, officials from the State Department of Lands, surveyors and forensic document examiners, to explain the history of the property and challenge the authenticity of documents supporting Chelogoi’s title.
Their evidence sought to establish how the contested registration was processed and whether the documentation relied upon could legally support ownership of the parcel.
Registrar denies authorising disputed title
One of the most significant pieces of evidence came from land registrar Paulina Achieng Pesa, whose signature and official stamp appeared on documents presented in support of Chelogoi’s title.
Pesa told the court that she had neither signed nor stamped the documents in question and had not authorised the transfer or registration of the property in Chelogoi’s name.
Magistrate Alego ultimately found that the signature and stamp impressions were forged, undermining the authenticity of the records used to support the former administrator’s claim.
The court also heard that a registry file relied upon in connection with the disputed registration did not correspond to the property in question but instead related to a different parcel of land.
These discrepancies became central to the prosecution’s case, which sought to demonstrate that the registration supporting Chelogoi’s ownership claim was not genuine.
The judgment underscores the importance of verifying land records and ensuring that official documentation reflects legitimate transactions, particularly where valuable properties are involved.
Chelogoi’s defence: ‘The land was allocated to me in 1995’
Throughout the trial, Chelogoi maintained that he was the rightful owner of the disputed property, insisting that the government had allocated it to him decades before the alleged fraudulent registration.
In his defence, the former provincial administrator told the court that former President Daniel arap Moi allocated him the land in January 1995 and that he paid a stand premium of approximately Sh2.48 million.
He argued that his demanding public service assignments and financial limitations delayed the regularisation of his ownership documents until June 2021.
Chelogoi also challenged the forensic examination of the disputed documents, arguing that the original records had not been analysed.
However, Magistrate Alego found that his defence had not supplied sufficient authenticated documentation to displace the ownership established by the complainants.
The conviction therefore marks a decisive judicial finding against his claim in the criminal proceedings, although any further legal challenges would depend on the applicable appellate process.
Court raises concern over delays and alleged intimidation
Beyond the evidence surrounding the property, the magistrate expressed concern about the time taken to conclude the proceedings and what she described as attempts at intimidation.
Alego said she had received letters from Chelogoi addressed to her personally, with copies also sent to her employer.
Questioning whether such conduct should influence judicial proceedings, she remarked: “If courts were to run by intimidation, would we have a judicial system?”
The magistrate lamented that it had taken approximately a year to reach the judgment, attributing the delay to repeated applications filed during the proceedings.
Her remarks came after the High Court dismissed Chelogoi’s latest attempt to challenge the criminal trial before the judgment was delivered.
On Thursday, October 15, 2026, Milimani High Court Judge Alexander Muteti rejected Chelogoi’s revision application seeking to have the case transferred to another magistrate or the proceedings halted.
“The application is dismissed. The matter in the lower court shall proceed to its logical conclusion,” Justice Muteti ruled.
The judge held that Chelogoi had failed to prosecute his application seeking the trial magistrate’s recusal as directed by the High Court and could not use the revision proceedings to delay the conclusion of the case.
The decision cleared the way for the lower court to deliver its verdict the following day.
Co-accused walks free
While Chelogoi was convicted, Kirungu was acquitted after the magistrate concluded that the prosecution had not established sufficient evidence of his criminal culpability.
The two had faced allegations connected to the registration of the property, but the court assessed the evidence against each accused person individually.
Kirungu’s acquittal means that the prosecution’s case against him did not meet the threshold required for a conviction. It also distinguishes his legal position from that of Chelogoi, who was found guilty on all five counts.
The outcome illustrates the principle that criminal responsibility must be established against each accused person on the evidence presented in court, rather than inferred solely from their association with the same transaction.
Land ownership dispute that reached multiple courts
The criminal trial is part of a wider legal contest over the Lower Kabete property, with competing ownership claims generating proceedings in different courts.
The earlier Environment and Land Court judgment of July 28, 2022, affirmed Shah and Raja’s ownership. Chelogoi, however, maintained that his own title originated from the government’s allocation in 1995.
In previous court proceedings, he argued that his title had not been cancelled and questioned how another title could have been issued for the same property.
The competing claims highlighted a problem with potentially serious consequences for property owners and investors: the existence of conflicting registration records can create uncertainty over who holds legitimate ownership rights.
In the criminal case, the prosecution sought to establish that the documents supporting Chelogoi’s claim were fraudulent. The magistrate’s findings on the authenticity of those documents ultimately proved central to the conviction.
The latest order directing the Chief Land Registrar to cancel parallel title deeds and registration details is intended to address the conflicting records relating to the property, in line with the court’s findings and orders.
Sentencing next
With the conviction delivered, attention now shifts to mitigation and sentencing, scheduled for November 2, 2026.
During mitigation, the court will hear submissions relevant to the sentence before determining the appropriate punishment under the law for the offences of which Chelogoi has been convicted.
Until then, the former provincial commissioner is to remain in custody under the magistrate’s order.
The case is likely to remain significant in discussions about land administration, the authenticity of title deeds and accountability where disputed property transactions involve public institutions.
For Shah and Raja, the judgment marks an important development in their prolonged effort to defend ownership of the property. For the land administration system, it highlights the consequences of disputed records and the need for reliable documentation and transparent registration procedures.
The final chapter in the case will be shaped by the sentencing decision and any subsequent legal steps taken by the parties.
About The Author
