Judge throws out son and father's land row case amid death threats

Imagine presiding over a case where the verdict is subject to a threat that someone might die if the outcome is not in a party’s favour.

This is the predicament faced by Environment and Land Court Justice Oguttu Mboya when he was determining a case between a self-proclaimed police officer, Abdi Guyo Jattani, and his father, Guyo Jattani, over the ownership of a plot in Moyale.

The judge said the court battle between the two was fascinating, mind-boggling and equally unfathomable.

He observed that Abdi, who allegedly claimed to be a police officer attached to the Kenya Prisons Service, had threatened to kill Guyo.

In addition, the judge observed that Abdi’s sister, Fatuma Guyo Jattano, had also testified that he had equally  threatened to kill her if she testified in favour of their father before the magistrate’s court.

The judge noted that Abdi did not hide his intention. Instead, he walked to the Directorate of Human Resource Management, Development and Administration and issued threats which were captured in a letter dated 30 June 2025.

In the letter addressed to the Commanding Officer of the Judiciary Police Unit, Abdi allegedly said "damu itamwagika" (blood will be shed) if his case was not heard at the scheduled time.

He was said to have gone a second day for a follow-up and was directed to the Judiciary’s Ombudsperson.

Out of fear that Abdi would cause harm, the Directorate urged the police boss to deploy police officers to Isiolo Law Courts on 3 July 2025 and directed that no one would be permitted to enter the court premises while armed.

Justice Oguttu said that the letter amounted to blackmail, which he would not fall for. “To this end, no amount of threats, blackmail, inducement, and/or intimidation can defraud the cause of justice.

Moreover, I beg to remind myself that having taken the oath of office to administer justice according to the Constitution and the law, and bearing in mind that judgeship is God’s delegated duty, no amount of fear can propel me to do otherwise,” said Oguttu.

“In short, threats or no threats, blackmail or no blackmail; the subject matter must be determined on the basis of the law. Period!”

In the case, Abdi wanted the court to find that he was entitled to the ownership of the property, including management and collecting revenue from it. He also wanted the court to bar his father from claiming it.

The case started at the magistrate’s court, which threw out Abdi’s arguments. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal citing 13 grounds on which he believed the magistrate erred in the judgment.

Abdi claimed that there were grave contradictions in his father’s testimony on who owned the contested property.

He also contested the finding that he was born in 1973 instead of a year earlier. According to him, the magistrate passed the burden to him to prove that he was born in 1972, as opposed to his father’s argument that he was a 1973 child.

On the other hand, Guyo argued that his son had caused the Registrar of Lands in Marsabit County to forge documents in a bid to defraud him of land.

However, in the appeal, Abdi said that the Registrar was not a party to the case. He alleged that the land had been left to his mother as a gift by his grandmother, who ultimately gave it to him.

On the other hand, his father told the court that he was allocated the land in 1972 by the Marsabit County Council and had occupied the same for 50 years.

He argued that Abdi was born on 30 September 1973, after the property allocation had been done.

Justice Oguttu dismissed Abdi’s argument by finding that it would have been a miracle for him to have land before he was born.

“Various questions do arise. Firstly, could the appellant have been allocated and registered as the owner of the suit plot prophetically long before he was conceived and born? The answer is obvious,” he paused.

He directed that Abdi pays his father the cost of the appeal, with the same being taxed by the Deputy Registrar of the court.

“Despite the threats, blackmail and intimidation [whose details were highlighted earlier in the body of the judgment], the appeal courts dismissal,” he said.