New twist in row over Tassia playground
An attempt by the residents of Tassia estate to block development of an open ground in the estate is in bad faith, a court has heard.
The residents, currently enjoying temporary orders against a company erecting a boundary wall at a parcel of land allegedly used as a recreation field, will have their petition opposed.
The county and central governments want legal action taken by the residents declared defective and an abuse of the court process.
The Attorney General has filed grounds of opposition to the case instituted by three Tassia residents suing on their own behalf and that of Fedha Residents Association.
Messrs Joshua Nyiera, Farooq Mungai and Irshadali Sumra claim the piece of land has served for many years as a playground for their children.
Denying the children access to the field, they argued, will endanger their lives since they will be forced to play on roads, which are prone to heavy motor traffic.
They have sued Tassia Coffee Estate Ltd, National Land Commission, Chief Land Registrar, County Government of Nairobi and the Attorney General.
The orders were issued against Tassia Coffee Estate Ltd pending hearing of the petition and further orders of the court.
The company, in its response to the petition through an affidavit of its chairman Mr Stanley Githunguri, said the parcel of land allegedly used as recreation field was not part of those surrendered to be used as open spaces.
Tassia Coffee Estates further claims it has been in occupation of the land and only allowed children to play on it pending development. The petitioners say they have learnt that the firm Ltd intends to enclose the parcel of land.
“In constructing the wall, the first respondent (Tassia coffee estate Ltd ) will in effect be evicting the petitioners and residents of Fedha Estate from a public utility field which they have a right to,” read part of their grounds of their application.
However the AG says Tassia Coffee Estate has a right to exercise its proprietary rights over the parcel of land, being the duly registered owner.
“There is no bid to unlawfully evict the residents as they have no registered proprietary interest over suit property,” read the grounds of opposition.