After months of court battles pitching him and his former lover, Marianne Kitany Meru Senator Mithika Linturi has finally emerged victorious.
The Meru senator landed a major court win in a property dispute involving parcels of land amounting to several Millions.
This is after Barons Estate Limited a Kitany allied company moved to court to procure the sale of three parcels of land whose title deeds had been used to secure a 530 Million loan.
The loan was guaranteed by Barons Limited and was issued to Mithika Linturi associated company called Atticon limited by a local Kenyan bank.
In their application to the court, Barons limited accused Linturi of raising the loan amount stating that they had only guaranteed up to Ksh 326,250,000 and later learned of Atticon receiving to the tune of Ksh. 530 Million.
Further accusations were allegations of forgery, against Atticon Limited, Senator Linturi, Emily Nkirote Buantai, and Litany Investments Limited.
Barons Limited had earlier told the courts that they had found a willing and potential buyer to the property to the tune of 400 Million and were seeking a deposit of 326 Million in a joint interest account for the advocates and the bank.
They also called for the release of the title deeds to the buyer upon a successful sale of the parcels of land, a thing the courts failed to permit.
Citing voluntary agreement between the two companies High Court Judge Wilfrida Okwany said permitting the sale of the lands would amount to rewriting the contracts.
“The court cannot interfere with the terms of the said agreement except where it has been established that there was coercion, fraud, or undue influence. In the present case, the applicant concedes that the issue of whether there was a forgery by the respondents in executing the charges is an issue that can be determined only after hearing the main suit,” Justice Okwany stated.
Okwany further noted that Barons had failed to establish a case for granting of orders they had sought in the application.
In their argument, Linturi’s defence said that the sale of the property would not only be a contract breach but also prejudicial. This is because Atticon had provided adequate consideration in exchange for Barons guaranteeing the loan.