The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) has issued a statement addressing a recent incident involving the arrest of an elderly man over a disputed piece of land in Nairobi’s Lavington district. The incident was captured in videos that circulated online, leading to public outcry.

According to the DCI’s statement, the arrest was prompted by a complaint made by Munir Ahmed Chaundri, a 75-year-old Kenyan citizen living in the United Kingdom. Chaundri accused the current occupants of the disputed land, Mahesh Kumar Bhatti and Anita Bhatti, of unlawfully claiming ownership of the parcel.

The DCI’s statement provides a timeline of events related to the land dispute:

  1. Chaundri claimed to have purchased the parcel in 1977. In 1984, it was rented to a construction company linked to the accused occupants.
  2. In 1987, part of the land was sold to the said TM-AM company, which was subdivided into two portions. One portion was sold to Mahesh and Anita Bhatti, while the other was retained by Chaundri.
  3. In August 2006, discussions took place between Mahesh and the late Malkiat Singh Assi about the sale of Mahesh’s portion of land to TM-AM. Although the offer was rejected, they agreed to build a perimeter wall covering both plots with a permanent gate for security purposes.
  4. Chaundri reported the matter to the authorities in February of the current year, alleging that the Bhattis denied him entry to the property, which was unlike previous occasions where access had been granted.

The DCI stated that the suspects in the case, Mahesh Kumar Bhatti and Anita Bhatti, have not provided ownership documents relating to the disputed land. The Director of Public Prosecution reviewed the facts and evidence presented and directed the prosecution of the Bhattis for the offense of forceful detainer, as outlined in the Penal Code.

The DCI’s statement emphasized that the videos shared on social media provided an incomplete picture of the situation, and that the truth would be established through the presentation of evidence in court. Despite the uproar on social media, the investigative agency asserted that the case would be determined based on the facts and evidence presented during the legal proceedings.

It’s worth noting that this account is based on the information provided in the statement issued by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. The situation might evolve or change over time, and it’s important to consider multiple sources of information for a comprehensive understanding of the matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookie Code Update cookies preferences