Lawyers urge Ruto to settle land case

SHARE BOOKMARKPRINTRATING

A section of the 100-acre farm in Turbo that Deputy President William Ruto is alleged to have grabbed from farmer Adrian Muteshi. Photo/FILE  NATION MEDIA GROUP

By PAUL OGEMBA pogemba@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted  Monday, July 8  2013 at  13:27

Deputy President William Ruto’s legal advisers have recommended to him not to appeal against a court ruling that he compensates a post-election violence victim Sh5 million. Read (Ruto to pay Sh5m in land case)

The lawyers said that the appeal may not work in Mr Ruto’s benefit because he was not involved in the fraudulent acquisition of the 100-acre farm and that he was as much a victim as the land owner.

Instead, the legal team has advised him to settle the matter by handing over the land to Mr Adrian Gilbert Muteshi and complying with the court order to compensate Mr Muteshi.

“Ideally, this situation should be buried neatly by a hand over of the land and an acknowledgment that even before the judgment, the deputy president had offered to hand over the property but the land owner made huge financial demands which made discussions to collapse,” said the legal advisers.

According to the lawyers, no adverse findings were made against Mr Ruto since the judge exonerated him from any blame of being involved in the fraudulent activity.

Lady Justice Rose Ougo on June 29 ordered the deputy president to pay Mr Muteshi Sh5 million for depriving him access to the land and the benefits he would have gained from the land.

The judge ruled that Mr Muteshi had proved the property was his and that he had been deprived of it, but that Mr Ruto was not involved in the fraudulent takeover of the land since he purchased it from persons he considered trustworthy but who turned out to be dishonest.

“I can only find that Mr Ruto was a trespasser and was farming in the land without the consent of the owner. That is why he is to compensate Mr Muteshi for the period he was denied access and possession of his property,” ruled Justice Ougo.

Mr Muteshi had accused the deputy president of hatching a plot to grab his 100-acre farm in Uasin Gishu during the 2008 post-election violence when he had fled for safety.

Mr Ruto in his defence stated that he was an unsuspecting buyer who heard that some land was being sold and conducted due diligence before purchasing it from people he believed were the owners of the property.

He had offered in 2012 to vacate the land in an out-of-court settlement but the deal collapsed when Mr Muteshi demanded a huge amount for compensation.

Mr Ruto’s legal advisers said that the gesture of attempting to return the land back to Mr Muteshi was enough testimony that he was acting in good will and should not contemplate appealing the ruling.

They cautioned Mr Ruto against any appeal arguing that the Appellate Court may take the opportunity to advance partisan interests including reversing the positive findings made in his favour by the High Court.

“The court may adversely hold that the client, as a beneficiary of the transaction, was guilty of fraud. Such finding would be a calamity which can only be overturned by the Supreme Court which unfortunately does not ordinarily accept to hear appeals from the Appellate Court,” said the legal advisers.

They added that the risk of that eventuality outweighs the benefit of an appeal which in other quarters will be seen as a situation where a leader is pursuing property at any cost and against a hapless citizen.