History of Embakasi Ranching Company in Nairobi City

HISTORY OF EMBAKASI RANCHING COMPANY IN NAIROBI CITY

COUNTY, KENYA, 1963-2013

KIBANYA ELIZABETH GATHIGIA

C50/CE/22903/2012

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL

SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (HISTORY) OF

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SEPTEMBER 2020

DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and to the best of my knowledge has not been presented for a degree in any other university.

Name: KIBANYA ELIZABETH GATHIGIA

C50/CE/22903 /2012.

Signature: ______

Date: ______

This thesis has been submitted with our approval as the University supervisors

1. Dr. PIUS KAKAI

Signature: ------Date ------

2. Dr. FELIX KIRUTHU

Signature: ------Date: ------

` DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to my late Dad, James Kibanya Gachemi.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to the Almighty God for enabling me to finish this work. Although the work took longer than anticipated the realisation of the goal was the most important thing. It is not possible to fully express my gratitude to all those who supported me in realisation of this dream.

Special gratitude goes to Kenyatta University and especially the Department of

History, Archaeology and Political Studies. The Department provided all the necessary materials that were required in this study. Through the chairman and the secretary of the Department, I was able to access the scholarly work in the department.

For my supervisors, Dr. Pius Kakai and Dr. Felix Kiruthu, I have no proper words to express my gratitude to your immeasurable support in this work. You were always available to give the professional guidance. At times I called on your office at odd times like lunch break and early in the morning and you never turned me away. Your positive criticism and suggestions on areas to focus on went a long way in improving this work.

Special thanks to my employer Teachers Service Commission for granting me three months study leave so as to fast track the collection and analysing of data which was behind schedule. Muhuri Muchiri Secondary community especially the humanities department was equally supportive to me. Without this support the work could have taken longer to complete.

iii

My friends and classmates like Jane Ndung’u, Grace Ndegwa and the masters class of year 2013, thank you for keeping the fire burning. I wish to thank you for encouraging me to soldier on and never to give up. The informants in this study cannot be forgotten. The vital information that they provided shaped the outcome of this study. Special appreciation goes to the late Jane Nyambura who was among the first informant to be interviewed and referred me to others and even provided some documents to substantiate her information. Joakino Mukanda was equally instrumental in this study as he went to an extent of sharing some documents that were used to authenticate the data collected from other informants. Joakino was slightly unwell during the interview but was so much willing to share his story of

Embakasi Ranching Company. The late chairman of Embakasi Ranching Samuel

Mwangi Thuita also provided vital details on the founders of the company.

For my family, receive my sincere gratitude. Special gratitude goes to my husband

Charles for being there for the children as I spent many days in the Kenya National

Archives and the library. Thank you for your constant reminder that I need to go an extra mile to finish this work. My children Brenda and Mercy thank you for your encouragement and understanding throughout the process. I wish to thank my mother Isabel who kept on asking about the progress of my study. Your prayers mum, have been answered with the completion of this work.

I also wish to thank Elijah Mugendi my research assistant for his tireless effort and dedication in escorting me to various places to do interviews. My appreciation also goes to Johnson Abuko for typing this work neatly and promptly. For all these people and others, may God bless you abundantly.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION...... i DEDICATION...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... x DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL TERMS ...... xi ABSTRACT ...... xiii 1.0 CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Background of the study ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the problem ...... 5 1.3 Objectives of the study ...... 5 1.4 Research Questions ...... 6 1.5 Research assumptions ...... 6 1.6 Justification and Significance of the Study ...... 6 1.7 Scope of the Study ...... 8 1.8 Limitations of the Study ...... 8 1.9 Literature review ...... 9 1. 9.1 Introduction ...... 9 1.9.2 Review of related literature...... 10 1.9.3 Summary of gaps in reviewed literature ...... 16 1.9.4 Theoretical framework ...... 18 1.9.5 Neopatrimonialism theory ...... 18 1.9.5 Methodology ...... 22 Introduction ...... 22 Research Design ...... 22 Site of the study ...... 22 Target population...... 22 Sampling procedure ...... 22 Sample size ...... 23 Methods of data collection...... 23 Data analysis ...... 25 Ethical considerations ...... 25 2.00: CHAPTER 2 ...... 26

FORMATION OF LAND BUYING COMPANIES IN KENYA FROM 1963- 1978 ...... 26 2.1 Introduction ...... 26 2.2 The colonial land policies and the land question in Kenya: 1896 to 1945...... 26 2.3 The land question from 1946-1953 ...... 30 2.4 The Swynnerton plan of 1954 and its effects on distribution of land in Kenya...... 35 2.6 Development of the settlement schemes from 1963 ...... 45 2.7 Political independence and formation of land buying companies: 1963-1978 ...... 54 3.0. CHAPTER THREE ...... 63 THE EXPANSION OF NAIROBI AND DEVELOPMENT OF EMBAKASI RANCHING COMPANY FROM 1979 TO 2002 ...... 63 3.1 Introduction ...... 63 3.2. Expansion of Nairobi and land buying companies’ policies from 1979 to 2002 ...... 63 3.3 The formation of Embakasi Ranching Company ...... 67 3.4 The development of Embakasi Ranching Company 1979 to 2002 ...... 74 3.5 Conclusion ...... 85 4.0. CHAPTER FOUR ...... 86 CHALLENGES OF EMBAKASI RANCHING COMPANY FROM 2003 TO 2013 ...... 86 4.1 Introduction ...... 86 4.2 Challenges faced by Embakasi Ranching Company from 2003 to 2013. 86 4.3 Conclusion ...... 105 5.00: CHAPTER FIVE: ...... 107 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 107 5.1 Introduction ...... 107 5.2 Summary ...... 107 5.3 Conclusion ...... 109 5.4 Recommendations ...... 109 Primary sources ...... 111 List of informants ...... 111 Archival sources ...... 112 Embakasi Ranching unpublished sources ...... 114 Magazines ...... 116 Newspapers ...... 117 Journals ...... 117

Dissertations and Thesis ...... 122 Papers ...... 124 Books ...... 125 Appendix i ...... 129 Interview schedule for shareholders ...... 129 Appendix ii ...... 132 Interview schedule for company directors and employees...... 132 Appendix iii ...... 135 Interview schedule for National Government Official ...... 135 Appendix iv ...... 137 Interview schedule for Nairobi County official ...... 137 Appendix v ...... 139 Map of Kenya showing Nairobi County ...... 139 Appendix vi ...... 140 Map of Nairobi County showing Njiru Sub County ...... 140 Appendix vii ...... 141 Photograph showing Muhuri Muchiri public stadium ...... 141 Appendix viii ...... 142 Photograph showing Nairobi City Water and Sewage Company treatment plant at Ruai ...... 142 Appendix ix ...... 143 Photograph showing source of water (bore hole) ...... 143 Appendix x ...... 144 Photograph showing a tarmac road connecting the estate with Kangundo road...... 144 Appendix xi ...... 145 Photograph showing tarmac road to the sewage plant...... 145 Appendix xii ...... 146 Photograph showing one the churches in the area ...... 146 Appendix xiii ...... 147 Photograph showing the Presbyterian Church of East Africa ...... 147 Photograph showing innocent ACK church ...... 148 Appendix xv ...... 149 Photograph showing Ruai Market ...... 149 Appendix xvi ...... 150 Photograph showing Ruai town ...... 150 Appendix vii ...... 151

vii

Photograph showing Ruai shopping centre ...... 151 Appendix xviii ...... 152 Photograph showing sign posts of development projects in the area ...... 152 Appendix xix ...... 153 Photograph showing Muhuri Muchiri Secondary school ...... 153 Appendix xx ...... 154 Letter of introduction ...... 154 Appendix xxi ...... 155 Research permit ...... 155 Appendix xxii ...... 156 Letter from graduate school to NACOSTI ...... 156 Appendix xxiii ...... 157 Consent form ...... 157

viii

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

1. Photograph showing Samuel Mwangi Thuita the Chairman of Embakasi

Ranching Company

2. Photograph showing Muhuri Muchiri Stadium.

3 Photograph showing Nairobi City Water and Sewage Company.

4. Photograph showing source of water (borehole).

5. Photograph sshowing tarmac road in Ruai Estate.

6. Photograph showing tarmac road to sewage plant.

7. Photograph showing one of the churches.

8. Photograph showing P.C.E.A. church.

9. Photograph showing Anglican Church of Kenya-Holy Innocent Parish –Ruai.

10. Photograph showing Ruai market.

11. Photograph showing Ruai town.

12. Photograph showing sign posts of development projects.

13. Photograph showing sign posts of development projects.

14. Photographs showing Muhuri Muchiri High School.

15. Photograph showing Embakasi Ranching arena.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGM- Annual General Meeting

IBEA- Imperial British East African Company

GEA-German East African Company

GEMA- Gikuyu Embu Meru Association

KANU-Kenya African National Union

KAU- Kenya African Union

KSHS- Kenya Shillings

MAS-Million Acre Scheme

MP- Member of parliament

NCCO- Nairobi City County Officials

NGO-National Government Officials

SFT-Settlement Fund Trustee

SSS- Smallholder Settlement Scheme

WW2- Second World war

DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL TERMS

Directors – Leaders elected during the annual general meeting of Embakasi

Ranching Companies to make and implement the company policies.

Double allocation- This is when the company gives one parcel of land to two individuals without their knowledge.

None shareholders- These are members who bought land from original shareholders. The Company had to transfer documents to their names in the

Company’s offices. They were not entitled to any financial benefit from the

Company’s annual financial profits.

Original shareholders- These were the pioneer members who bought land in

Embakasi Ranching Company.

Ranching Companies – These are registered companies in Kenya which owned large scale farms in the white highlands during the colonial period and post independent Kenya. They practiced both animal and crop farming in large scale.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Jeshi la Embakasi- This was a criminal gang formed by the late MP of Embakasi

David Mwenje from the poor, unemployed youth to fight his political rivals.

Kipande- This was a pass book. It was an identity document that was used in

Kenya during the colonial period. It was compulsory for all African males above

15 years. It had basic personal details like name, place of birth and employment history. They were expected to hang it around the neck.

Muhinja- This is a Kikuyu word that refers to someone whose body is slim. This name was given to the European settler who owned Embakasi Ranching Company land before he sold it to the company. He was given the name because of his slim body size.

Muturio- A Kikuyu word used to refer to pioneers or the first shareholders of

Embakasi Ranching

Uhuru- The term was derived from Kiswahili language. It means freedom. The term was used by African nationalists in Kenya to refer to political independence during the struggle to end European colonialism in Kenya.

xii

ABSTRACT

Land buying companies were investment opportunities that enabled people to purchase plots of land and construct homes in Kenya. This study analysed the history of land buying companies in Kenya with reference to Embakasi Ranching Company. The Company is located in Nairobi City County in Njiru sub-county. The objectives of the study were to; examine the factors behind the formation of land buying companies from 1963 to 1978, analyze how the expansion of Nairobi led to development of Embakasi Ranching Company from 1979 to 2002 and investigate the challenges faced by the Embakasi Ranching Company from 2003 to 2013. This study was informed by Neopatrimonialism theory. Both primary and secondary sources were used. The primary sources contained first-hand information. The primary data was collected from the Kenya National Archives and Embakasi Ranching Company’s unpublished sources. More primary data was collected from the company directors, the shareholders and National Government officials in Njiru Sub-county. The informants living outside Nairobi were also traced and interviewed. Purposive sampling method was applied to identify and select informants. Interview schedules were used to carry out oral interviews. Secondary sources contained information originally presented in another source. The secondary data was obtained from published books, journals, magazines, newspapers and electronic media. The data collected was analysed and presented in descriptive form. The findings of this study revealed that, Kenya’s post independence government policies on land led to the formation of land buying companies in Kenya. It was further revealed that, the expansion of Nairobi and population migration trends led to formation of Embakasi Ranching Company. The company aimed at giving land to the landless widows of Mau Mau veterans, the Mau Mau veterans, Nyakinyua women group from Eastland estates of Nairobi City County, landless public servants and other landless poor in Nairobi. Although the company was able to accelerate socio-economic development, it experienced several drawbacks. However, most of the challenges emanated from lack of integrity. One of the major findings of the study was that, Embakasi Ranching Company was formed by political leaders not just to enable the poor access land in Nairobi but also to enable these leaders accomplish their political goals and accumulate wealth which was a feature of Neopatrimonialism paradigm.

xiii

1.0 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Land was highly valued among many African societies in Kenya before and after

European colonialism. It was described as the centrepiece of Kenya’s development and which always dictated the pulse of nationhood. Indeed, land was one of the factors that led to the struggle for independence in Kenya. Land was an integral part of development and dictated the path of nationhood in many states. This was due to the fact that, land was considered a paramount factor of production (Adam 2010).

Land buying companies became an important area of focus since the onset of the new millennium. The idea behind the formation of companies to buy land varies considerably. Nevertheless, many were formed for economic, social and political purposes.

A number of scholars have written on land buying companies at international, regional and local levels in different historical times. Hudson’s Bay Company was said to be the oldest corporation in the world in existence by 19th Century. This company was said to be one of the largest private land owners in the Dominion of

Canada. It dealt with fur and other goods (Galbraith 1956). The study was useful as it provided insight on some of the activities performed by land buying companies in

Canada. A study in New Zealand discussed how land purchase methods affected the

Maori population. The study asserted that, one of the most negative by-products of

European colonization in New Zealand was serious decline of Maori population. It was pointed out that, the population declined from 240,000 in 1768 to a little more

than 100,000 by 1840 and by 1857 to under 60,000 (Sorrenson 1956). The study associated colonization with land alienation which eventually led to depopulation of the colonised, The study depicted the challenges faced by people in New Zealand due to formation of land buying companies in their country which was quite detrimental to the growth of population.

In Japan, land ownership and land tenure relations were addressed in relation to agricultural output. There was an attempt to present the history and course of development of fundamental production relations of Japanese agriculture and institutional systems of land ownership and land use (Tanka 1990). This was based on history of Japan prior to W.W.2. The study expounded on land protection and land tenure policy as aspects of modern questions related to the modernization of agrarian economy. The study was useful as it pointed out on methods of land ownership and land use prior to W.W2.

In Africa, there were several studies on land and land buying companies. Africans’ civilization and growth of modern Africa led to the rise of European chartered companies. In the early stages of European invasion of Africa, the chartered companies never sought ways of meeting the cost of running the colonies from their mother governments. For this reason, the British government tasked the Royal Niger

Company, Imperial British East Africa Company and the British South Africa

Company to occupy various parts of the continent (Ayandele, 1971). These companies seemed to have been used by Britain to cut the cost of administration. The goal of these European based companies was trade and economic exploitation of

Africa during the colonial era. European governments hid behind these companies to

evade the cost of administration in the early days of colonization. These land companies appropriated land from the Africans for their economic ventures with total disregard of the native land customs and laws.

The economics of colonialism in the African continent was highly associated with land buying companies. Indeed, the companies also administered the areas under their jurisdiction on behalf of their governments. The companies were to administer justice, to enforce treaty rights, to collect custom duties and spend the receipts solely on expense of rule (Duighan, 1975). The above pointed out clearly that, these companies were being used by their mother governments to help in governance. Their proceeds from trade and exploitation of natural resources were therefore used in meeting the cost of administration of the colonies.

In Nigeria, there was focus on the dynamism inherent in land tenure practices in general, and as a product of colonialism. It was asserted that, land companies in particular, were never incorporated in the conceptualisation of customary land tenure.

Worse still was the colonial policy's disregard of the extent to which land was bought or sold even in the pre-colonial era. Africans used to buy land from each other for mutual benefit of the transacting partners. It was further noted that, the sale of land in

Egbaland had been going on for at least sixty years before 1930s (Mabogunje, 1990).

This affirmed that, indeed, Africans used to sell land in pre-colonial period but not through land buying companies as they never existed. The land buying companies in

Nigeria was therefore a product of European domination and colonialism. The

European colonialists seemed to have introduced a new method of land acquisition in total disregard of the native customary methods of land ownership.

In East Africa, the history of land buying company was traced to colonial period. The origin of the I.B.E.A was found to be back in1856 when William Macknon and others started a steamship service around Indian Ocean coast. The origin of Royal Niger

Company was traced to George Goldie and Taubman and Germany East African

Company to Carl Peters (Okoth 1979). It was noted that, Carl Peters belonged to a colonial group that was able to convince members of the aristocratic conservative club in Berlin to establish a colonial society for the purpose of organizing and financing expeditions to annex overseas areas for German rule. This must have enabled

Germany East Africa Company to acquire land in East Africa for their economic ventures.

In Kenya, there were various studies on land buying companies. The struggles of accessing land were traced to colonial period when the state introduced the principle of land individualization. The white settlers managed to get huge chunks of land while

Africans became squatters in their own land. Colonial land policies led to landlessness among Africans (Kanyinga 1998). This was what provided a background on formation of land buying companies in Kenya. Kanogo’s (1987) study focused on squatters and the roots of Mau Mau. The study affirmed that, indeed, land alienation was among the pertinent grievances that Africans in Kenya had as they forged their way towards independence. Africans were subjected to suffering in the reserved areas and thus attaining independence became the national leaders’ major goal. They also pursued acquisition of land which had been the freedom fighters single most important objective. This depicted a scenario of Africans living in misery waiting eagerly for independence to reclaim their alienated land. The author demonstrated

how land alienation became the fertile ground upon which land buying companies were formed after attainment of independence in 1963 in Kenya.

1.2 Statement of the problem

From the reviewed literature on land buying companies, it was evident that there were studies on land buying companies at international, regional and local levels. However, some studies on land buying companies, focused on the period before WW2 (Tanka

1990; Sorrenson 1956) and colonial period in Africa (Duighan 1975; Carrey 2012;

Mabogunje 1990; Ayandele 1971) Some of the studies on land buying companies in

Kenya were not written from a historical perspective (Kariuki 2011;Koech; 2013,

Wambeti 2013). Scholars that have written on land buying companies from a historical perspective have only mentioned land buying companies within other studies (Kanyinga 1998; Tostensen 2000; Klopp 2000; Kanogo 1987). There were scanty local studies on land buying companies and especially for Embakasi Ranching

Company. These gaps called for a comprehensive study of land buying companies in

Kenya from a historical perspective. This study, therefore, examined the factors that motivated the formation of Land Buying Companies from 1963, analysed how the expansion of Nairobi led to development of the Embakasi Ranching Company and also investigated the challenges faced by Embakasi Ranching Company up to 2013.

1.3 Objectives of the study

This study sought to achieve the following objectives

1. To examine the factors that led to the formation of land buying companies in

Kenya from 1963 to 1978

2. To analyze how the expansion of Nairobi led to the development of the

Embakasi Ranching Company from 1979 to 2002.

3. To investigate the challenges faced by the Embakasi Ranching company from

2003 to 2013

1.4 Research Questions

(1) What factors led to the formation of land buying companies in Kenya from 1963 to 1978?

(2)How did the expansion of Nairobi affect the development of Embakasi Ranching

Company from 1979 to 2002?

(3)What challenges did Embakasi Ranching Company face from 2003 to

2013?

1.5 Research assumptions

(1) Political factors motivated the formation of land buying companies from 1963 to

1978.

(2) The expansion of Nairobi led to development of Embakasi Ranching Company from 1979 to 2002.

(3) Lack of integrity among leaders was the main challenge that faced Embakasi

Ranching Company from 2003 to 2013.

1.6 Justification and Significance of the Study

This study was justified on the basis of the approach used in study to land buying companies. Although a number of scholars have written on land buying companies, few have been written on land buying companies in Kenya from a historical

perspective. There were studies on Nairobi from a historical perspective but they were not on land buying companies. This study therefore, used a historical approach in the study of Embakasi Ranching Company and sought to bring out the historical aspect of the land buying companies from 1963 up to 2013.

The study investigated the evolution of Embakasi Ranching Company from 1963 to

2013. The period was long enough to facilitate an analysis of development of land buying companies in Kenya. 1963 was the year Kenya attained independence and many Kenyans embarked on various ways of acquiring land. This was because many of them were landless owing to colonial land policies. The year 2013 on the other hand marked the year when Mwai Kibaki handed over the presidential power to his successor. Mwai Kibaki led the nation in promulgation of the new constitution in

2010. The government embarked on implementation of the constitution. This study therefore analysed how chapter five of the constitution on land and environment was implemented in relation to Embakasi Ranching Company from up to 2013.

In the study of Kanogo (1987), it was mentioned that, land buying companies were formed immediately after independence in Kenya. It was therefore necessary to write on these land buying companies from a historical point of view. According to Racodi

(2007), many companies formed in Kenya normally become dormant after selling the land to investors. However, Embakasi Ranching Company was unique as its offices remained operational even after disposing the land to the shareholders. Scholars have written on land buying companies located in rural areas where they carried out farming activities, but Embakasi Ranching Company was unique due to its location in

the city where there were less agricultural activities. There was little focus on land buying companies in Nairobi from a historical perspective.

It was important to note that the number of surviving elderly people involved in land acquisition after independence was diminishing. It was therefore paramount that, this information was captured from people that pioneered in the formation of land buying.

Fortunately, Embakasi Ranching Company had such individuals who were knowledgeable and became sources of history for this company. The study of this company could assist other companies and individuals to learn from mistakes made and avoid similar mistakes in future. The government of Kenya could also use the research findings when formulating future policies on land buying companies.

1.7 Scope of the Study

This study was carried out in Nairobi City County, this was where Embakasi

Ranching company was located (see appendix vi and vii). However in cases where a potential informant was located outside Nairobi, the researcher travelled to carry out the interview.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

In the course of this study, certain challenges were encountered. Many informants were not willing to provide their age and hence the age indicated for some of them was approximated. Some respondents could not communicate in English hence the interviews were carried out in Kiswahili. A number of Embakasi Ranching Company directors did not keep time and date for the interview and kept on rescheduling interviews. It was difficult to secure an interview with NGO’s as they were busy with

official duties most of the times. This called for patience and persistence which eventually yielded the desired results. Nevertheless, it made the duration for collecting data longer than anticipated. Some informants were not willing to give the information that was negative about the company as they feared victimisation.

However, when they were assured that the information was for academic purposes and shown the research authorization documents they would finally accept. Some informants were not willing to give their names especially if they had expressed their disappointment with the leadership of the company. They were assured that the information and their identity will be handled with confidentiality. The use of research assistants also became problematic as it led to suspicion that they were working for the media. This prompted the researcher to seek for a study leave from the employer. This prolonged the time used to complete the data collection.

1.9 Literature review

1. 9.1 Introduction

This section reviewed related literature showing the existing gaps in previous scholarly work on land and land buying companies. The literature reviewed focused on land and land buying companies outside Africa, studies on Africa, Kenya and

Nairobi City County. The theory used in this study was also discussed in this section.

According to Baumol (1970), the traditional school of economics defined land as a factor of production, along with labour and capital. This rightly put land as one of the basic and very vital requirements in economic development. Indeed, land was held as a precious commodity especially by agrarian societies. It was for this reason that

individuals, groups of persons, companies and states world-wide strived to acquire land. Land was viewed as a masterpiece of development worldwide. This was due to the value associated with land. It was argued that, perhaps it was the oldest form of collateral. Land was still very attractive to leaders in the past because it could not be destroyed or moved. The value and importance associated with land thus explained why many groups of people formed land buying companies worldwide.

1.9.2 Review of related literature

There were British land buying companies that existed in 19th and 20th century

(Galbraith 1957). The author noted that the companies controlled large investments in natural resources and services in Asia and Latin America. These were English and

Dutch East India and Hudson Bay companies. These companies were described as trading multinational companies in the last two centuries. These European chartered companies were not based in Africa and the reason for their formation was to trade in natural resources found in the areas of settlement. The current study mainly focused on companies interested in acquisition of land in 21st Century in post independent

Kenya.

A study in America focused on land economics, principles of land utilization, land income and value, property in land, distinctive features of major land use and improvement of land use (Renne 1958). The study proved that, land was different from other major factors of production. Indeed, the study mainly focused on land from an economic point of view .The study provided vital information on economic uses of land which acted as a good base for the current study. However, the study did not discuss the relationship between formation of land buying companies and

expansion of urban centres. It did not also discuss the challenges faced by land buying companies which were discussed in the current study.

In Beatie’s (1979) study, there was attention on land inheritance in China. The author emphasised on one family lineage inheritance of land. The study further observed that, the main reason why the Chang-Ying family lineage was maintained with prestige was for the purpose of retaining their land, wealth and their education which were passed along the family line. Beatie’s study mainly concentrated on inheritance of land along family line. The current study on the other hand was based on acquisition of land by private investors through buying.

It was explained that, over the span of human history, man drew most of his fuel, clothing and shelter from land. Land had been man’s habitat and living space; it had been a matter of life and death for survival of communities (Mather 1986). The main focus in the author’s study was about how man had utilised land. The study related land use with decision making, government, urban and peri-urban, structure of land use, conservation, environment and planning. The relationship between land use and government formed a good basis for the current study. However, there was no reference on how land was acquired and more so through companies and hence the need for the current study. There was also no reference on challenges associated with land buying companies.

There were studies on challenges of land in Africa; among them was Carrey’s (2012) work which addressed the conflicts over land and water in Africa. He noted that competition over land followed myriad social fault line pitting national and local

elites against citizens, neighbour against neighbour, kinsmen against kinsmen and husband against wives. This study also focused on conflicts over land and water.

Although this work discussed challenges associated with land, it did not address on acquisition of land through companies in Africa after independence. This study was nevertheless useful in analysing challenges associated with land ownership which was an objective in this study.

In his work, Byamvgisha (2013) addressed the issue of securing Africa’s land for the future prosperity. He argued that, few development challenges in Africa were pressing and controversial as land ownership and its wide gap between rich and poor communities. Poor land governance, undocumented and land ownership inequalities as well as landlessness were blamed for land challenges in Africa. The main argument in the study was that, land ownership was a thorny issue in Africa in such countries like Cote d‘Ivoire, Kenya, Liberia and South Africa after political independence. This study provided a good frame work for the current study as challenges associated with land buying was interrogated in this current study.

In a study on colonialism in Africa, the Imperial British East African Company

(I.B.E.A) organised by Macknon which was chartered in 1888. The activities of this company seem to have been curved out by the leader. This company was not buying land but annexing it from African either through force or diplomacy (Duighan 1975).

The author did not relate the relationship between expansion of Nairobi and I.B.E.A.

The study failed to discuss the challenges of the company (I.B.E.A). The current study investigated the reasons behind the formation of Embakasi Ranching Company,

investigated the relationship between the company and the expansion of Nairobi and also the challenges faced by the company.

In his study of Nairobi, Etherton (1971) conducted a sociological study on Mathare valley. He described houses in Mathare valley as semi-permanent rural thatched round hut type. The main focus in this work was to examine the nature of uncontrolled housing situation in Mathare valley especially during the colonial period. The author’s work thus provided a good base upon which this study referenced. The study mentioned that the residents of Mathare lacked land and proper housing. The efforts of the landless trying to acquire houses formed a good background for this study.

Etherton’s study was therefore very important in addressing the second objective of the current study.

There was a study that addressed the issue of governing of an African city by Werlin

(1974). The author noted that, of all the problems that faced Nairobi City County in dealing with the rapid population growth during 1960s, housing was perhaps the most intractable. He further pointed out that, lack of housing was partly responsible for existence of illegal squatters and illegal hawking of about 5000 to 10000 in 1965. The study also discussed the challenges faced by Kenya government in urban areas at independence. It was explained that, at independence, the government was unable to satisfy the popular demands and expectations aroused by political leaders such as full employment, free education, free medical security, super highways and good housing for everyone. This study thus provided a good background for the second objective of the current study. However it did not mention the formation and challenges of land buying companies.

A study by Hake (1977) examined poverty in slums of Nairobi since colonial times. It attributed the origin of Nairobi to the caravan trade and the building of the railway.

The author asserted that, the railway authorities made Nairobi their headquarters and as a result became involved in extensive development. The main argument in the work was that, poverty in the city forced the city dwellers to get involved in self- help activities to improve their livelihood. Therefore, the study was important as formation of land buying companies in Nairobi was a self-help activity to help people acquire land. This study laid a good background for analysis of the first objective of the current study.

In the study by Kanyinga (1998) there was focus on the struggles of access to land in

Kenya. It was asserted that, the land question received less academic attention in

1990s than in period between 1950s and 1970s. The study also pointed out that, the land question roots from colonial period when the state introduced land individualization. It was from this period that Africans probably started the struggle for individual land ownership. It was therefore important to carry out more studies on land ownership in Kenya after independence. Kanyinga’s study therefore helped in achieving the first objective this work.

Challenges associated with land were addressed by Klopp (2000). The study focused on the roots of contemporary land grabbing in Kenya. The author observed that, the intensification of irregular allocations of land to well-connected individuals and land companies in Kenya’s land grabbing mania was a particularly revealing and under- scrutinized case of deepening corruption. The author argued that, the origin of land

grabbing could be traced to East African Protectorate of the British Government. He further lamented on the failure of the Attorney general to prosecute known land grabbers yet the ordinary citizens were not in a position to take such cases to court. It may not have been the role of Attorney General to prosecute land grabbers but probably he could have advised the government to take action against them. This pointed out that, there was need to study the question of land from different perspectives. The author further argued that, in Kenya, the deepening corruption around land allocation had highly failed to attract commensurate attention on the part of scholars. This study, therefore, attempted to address the gaps pointed out by this scholar.

There were studies that have addressed land buying companies in African urban centres. Tostensen’s (2001) work focused on welfare in African cities. It was posited that, many land companies in Kenya were associated with a host of challenges, thus painting a negative perspective about them. One of the challenges highlighted was the poor management skills. This led to poor management of funds thus raising integrity questions. The author further argued that, legitimacy, success and effectiveness of land companies were only achievable through regular annual general meetings that elicited community action. The challenges mentioned above were very useful in analysis of the complex land buying companies in Kenya. The study therefore, formed a good background in examining of challenges experienced by Embakasi Ranching

Company.

Kiruthu’s (2006) study on Nairobi focused on the informal sector in Nairobi City

County. The author mentioned that, the landless embarked on the informal sector

popularly referred to as ‘jua kali’ sector to meet their daily needs. The author also pointed out that, there were land conflicts and controversies between the ‘jua kali’ artisans and the Nairobi City County government in some parts of the city. Although the study discussed land alienation and Africans being landless at independence, it did not focus on the formation of land buying companies in Nairobi. This therefore, necessitated for a comprehensive study of land buying companies especially in

Nairobi to ascertain their roles in relation to the provision of land in towns.

Kariuki (2011) addressed the constraints in acquisition and ownership of houses in

Kasarani in Nairobi, which is the location of the current study. Kariuki’s study concluded that only 10% of owned their houses in Kasarani, 77% rented houses while the rest lived with their parents. Wambeti (2013) addressed on effects of marketing strategy on real estate in Nairobi which is also the location of this study. In the study, it was pointed out that, the size and location of plots of land in Nairobi determined their prices. On the other hand, Koech (2013) focused on effects of real estate development on estate agents in Nakuru which is related to the current study as it was involved in the purchasing of land by companies. In his study, the estate agents were considered paramount in the growth of estates in post independent Kenya. The above approaches mainly focused on housing in urban centres in Kenya. It was, therefore, paramount to examine the development of other land buying companies from a historical perspective.

1.9.3 Summary of gaps in reviewed literature

The literature reviewed demonstrated that, various gaps existed that needed to be filled. Many scholars wrote on land at international, regional and local levels but said

little on for formation of land buying companies in post independence Kenya. Some scholars focused on land buying companies that existed in colonial era, others focused on real estates and others on challenges associated with land acquisition in Kenya but did not mention the challenges faced by land buying companies. Studies done on land buying companies in Nairobi were not written from a historical perspective. Other scholars’ studies on Nairobi were not on land buying companies. These gaps, therefore, prompted for a comprehensive historical study of land buying companies using the case of Embakasi Ranching Company.

1.9.4 Theoretical framework

Introduction

A number of paradigms have been formulated to explain economic development of

Africa. Land buying companies are part of the economic aspects of Africa. According to Zeleza (1993), Africa’s economic history has been dominated by many theories.

Among them is modernization which did not match Africa’s development. This theory alludes that Africa’s path of development is like the one followed by western nations. Modernization theorists assumed that, development occurred first in Europe and North America before spreading to Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Bernstein (1973) posited that, theorists of sociological and political background have projected a model of western society as paradigmatic of the state of being modern while tending to ignore the problematic economic dimension of the world modernization. This theory assumed that development in Africa could only be realised by adopting western model of civilization. These theories are therefore not suitable for the subject in this study since Embakasi Ranching Company was formed by

Africans to overcome the challenges caused by modernization.

1.9.5 Neopatrimonialism theory

This study was guided by Neo-patrimonialism theory. Erdmann (2007) defined Neo- patrimonialism as a combination of two forms of political domination. The author stated that, Neo-patrimonialism is a mixture of two existing partly interwoven types of domination, namely, patrimonial and legal-national bureaucratic domination.

Under patrimonialism all power relations between ruler and ruled as well as administrative relations are personal relations. There is no differentiation between private and public realms. This argument thus pointed out that, neo-patrimonialism is

made of patrimonialism and states bureaucracy. This paints a scenario where leaders of the state use formal structures to regulate and dominate private life. This may not be necessarily a destructive practice although the implementation and result may vary considerably. This study sought to relate the relationship between leaders and formation of Embakasi Ranching Company.

Using the Neo-patrimonialism theory to study Zambia, Soest (2007) noted that, after independence, the old colonial bureaucracy suddenly had to function under completely different circumstances for which it was prepared to function. The exit of colonial legacy witnessed the entrance of African political elites in power to fill the vacuum left. Most of the Africans who led in the process of decolonization of their respective states became leaders after independence. The author affirmed that, the new African governments adopted Neo-patrimonialism in their governance. This style of leadership according to the author was characterised by clientelism, which implied the award of personal favours and finally the use of state resources for political legitimatisation. The author argued that this practice amounted to corruption and rent- seeking behaviour. The current study sought to examine how the land owned by the

Embakasi Ranching Company was to seek favours and clientelism.

Neo-patrimonialism was a continuation of patrimonialism in modern times. Those in central government used their position to distribute resources belonging to the state to individuals and groups so as to gain popularity and thus remain in power (Commack

2011, Hyden 2000). Those in power were viewed to be powerful as they used their position to control the economic resources so as to gain political mileage.

Neopatrimonialism seems to have been derived from political, economic and social

structure devised by colonial rule. Since African leaders borrowed heavily from colonial legacy, African politics has been heavily influenced by political leaders who adopted the colonial policies to advance their political and economic goals.

Bayart’s (2009) study of governance in Africa after independence described this form of rule as the politics of the belly, characterised by a cut throat struggle at all levels of society to gain access to state resources referred to as the national cake and controlled by the political elite. According to Bach (2012), Neopatrimonialism can be applied to a number of different regimes, whether they are multi-party democracies, single-party systems, and personal dictatorships, plebiscitary or military oligarchies. It is therefore evident that Neopatrimonialism is applied by all people in society irrespective of their economic status as they all strive to access the national resources.

In conclusion, Neopatrimonialism in post independence Africa could be related with the establishment of a bureaucratic government. This was a structure borrowed from their former colonial masters. Secondly there was use of state resources to create political and personal relations. There was also struggle by politicians and citizens to get a share of the state resources. Clientelism was the third characteristic. This was where the state resources were used to favour some members. Leaders used rent- seeking behaviour to enrich themselves at the expense of society’s development.

Political leaders used their position to amass more wealth for their selfish gain. The current study used Neo- patrimonialism theory to analyse how land buying companies used land for political and material gain. The country witnessed three presidents between 1963 and 2013 under whose administration the theory was analysed. The first president ruled in a single party system while the second one ruled in both single

party and multi-party. The rule of the third president was in multi-party epoch.

However, despite the differences in relation to political parties all of them used neopatrimonialism in their administration. This study demonstrated how

Neopatrimonialism was used in Embakasi Ranching Company.

1.9.5 Methodology

Introduction

This section gives an outline of the research process applied in this study. The method used in the research is described in this section. The process followed in sampling, data collection and analysis is also discussed.

Research Design

The study employed qualitative research method. This approach was preferred as it provided detailed information. The study sought information from both primary and secondary sources. The data collected was analysed and put into topics and sub-topics as per research objectives. The data was presented in descriptive form.

Site of the study

This study was done in Nairobi City County. The county has nine sub-counties.

Embakasi Ranching company land and offices were located in Njiru sub-county and this was where most of the people involved in this company resided. However some shareholders were found in other parts of Nairobi County (appendix vi and vii).

Target population

The target population of the study included the seventeen directors of Embakasi

Ranching Company and workers, 6600 shareholders of the company and three

National Government officials.

Sampling procedure

Purposive sampling was employed in order to identify knowledgeable informants.

The study got information from the informants who had knowledge of Embakasi

Ranching Company. The key informants included directors of the company, workers

the company, national government representatives, shareholders of the Embakasi ranching company and residents of the area the company had sold land.

Sample size

The informants were those with knowledge of Embakasi Ranching Company. Three directors of this company were included in the study, two national government officials, twenty shareholders, and four residents living within Embakasi Ranching and two workers of the company. In total, thirty one informants were interviewed.

The interviews were stopped on reaching a point of data saturation; this was when there was negligible or no new information that was being obtained from the informants.

Methods of data collection

The researcher obtained a letter of introduction from Kenyatta University graduate school to facilitate field research. A research permit was also obtained from National

Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation. Both primary and secondary sources were used in the study. Primary sources were first-hand accounts and documents. The primary sources of data which the study drew were oral interviews and various forms of archival sources. The interviews were done using interview guides. Purposive sampling procedure was used to get informants with the best information to fulfil the objectives of the study. The informants were selected on the basis of their knowledge on Embakasi Ranching Company. In-depth interview schedules were used because they facilitated a face to face verbal response which helped to obtain reliable and valid information behind informants’ experiences. (Ref appendix i, ii, iii and iv).

The informants were those with the knowledge of the company in this study. This was based on those referred to the researcher during the interviews. This helped the researcher to get reliable people who had the relevant information of the company.

During the study, ground photographs were taken depicting the nature of the state of infrastructure in the area, social amenities and general economic growth in the area

(see appendix ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii). These photographs were important as they contained wealth of information that was used to illustrate development in the site of this study. They photographs have the ability to keep a permanent record for future reference.

More data was collected from unpublished sources of Embakasi Ranching Company.

In the Kenya National Archives the researcher got information from such sources as correspondents, minutes of meetings held in Nairobi in colonial period and after political independence in Kenya, handing over reports, government publications and

Weekly Review magazines. Secondary data was collected from Kenyatta University

Post Modern library and Kenya National Library. The main sources of secondary sources included books, internet sources, journals, magazines and newspapers.

Primary documents were obtained from Kenya National Archives, individual archives and Embakasi Ranching archives. The information collected from these documents revealed past policies on land and housing in Nairobi County. All the data collected was analysed and similarities and differences noted. The data was categorised into themes and sub-themes in line with objectives and historical periods. The documents were then subjected into content and contextual analysis to determine their validity

and accuracy. Finally, the information was classified into chapters as per the objectives of the study in qualitative form.

Data analysis

The data collected was in written form. The information collected in vernacular and

Kiswahili was translated into English language. Similarities and differences of various informants were noted. The secondary data was subjected to textual criticism to ascertain the accuracy. Only the relevant documents were used to write research findings. The data collected from both primary and secondary sources was used to write the final document. The data was classified into topics and sub topics and presented into three chapters in prose form.

Ethical considerations

In the study, only the participants who voluntarily accepted to give information were interviewed. No informant was coerced to participate in the research. The informants were informed of the purpose of the study. They were also informed of their roles before they participated. All the information that was obtained was handled with a lot of confidentiality.

2.00: CHAPTER 2

FORMATION OF LAND BUYING COMPANIES IN KENYA FROM 1963-

1978

2.1 Introduction

This chapter endeavoured to examine the factors that led to origin of land buying companies in Kenya. It was necessary to give a brief background of land alienation in

Kenya prior to formation of land buying companies in 1963. The formation of land buying companies was traced to colonial land policies. The chapter analyses colonial land policies as they formed the background of land appropriation in Kenya. The chapter also examines the role of ex-servicemen after World War Two in the quest for land, the rise of Mau Mau and the Swynnerton plan. In addition, there is analysis of the efforts made by Jomo Kenyatta’s government to enable the landless people acquire land at independence. In this connection, the study examines the establishment of settlement schemes and formation of land buying companies during the reign of the first president of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta. The origin of Nairobi and settlement of the Europeans in the city was also examined in this chapter. Neo- patrimonialism paradigm is used to underpin this objective.

2.2 The colonial land policies and the land question in Kenya: 1896 to 1945

The arrival of European imperialists in Kenya marked the beginning of expropriation of Africans’ land. The colonial land regulations were published but little alienation took place until the construction of the Kenya-Uganda railway in 1896. The alienation started with declaration of Africans land as crown land which was a somewhat ambiguous proclamation. This was when all the waste and unoccupied land was

declared crown land, hence resting it on colonial powers. This was followed by

Crown Land Ordinance of 1902 and 1915 (Morgan 1963). The colonial government seemed to have assumed that any land that was not occupied had no owner. They totally misunderstood the African agrarian practices like shifting cultivation by declaring the land empty. This was where land had to be left for some time to regain fertility. Some land was also left as pastures for the livestock.

Rosberg (1966) observed that in month of August of 1903 the Commissioner, Sir

Charles Eliot sent his Collector of Customs A. Marsden, to South Africa to encourage settlers to migrate to the country. It was noted that, by the end of 1905 over million acres of land had been leased or sold by the Protectorate authorities. In response to

Eliot’s request, the author stated that in 1906 a large party of Boers whom he termed as ‘‘irreconcilables’ trekked overland from Transvaal to the Uasin Gishu plateau.

Others were said to have poured in by boat from South Africa and Britain. This group that migrated from Britain and South Africa must be the one the colonial government hoped would help them repay the debt incurred in the railway construction. Indeed the urge to make Kenya a white man’s country and political kingdom had taken root with the building of the railway line.

The alienation of Africans land in relation to railway construction was also noted by

Dilley (1966) who argued that, the native problem was created by whites’ settlement.

The colonial government fostered the settlement because of the apparent suitability of the area opened up by the railway. The white’s settlement was made on Africans land through the formulation of the land policies. The land was taken in total disregard of

the local native customs and practices. The natives were never compensated despite the land being theirs legitimately. The construction of the Kenya-Uganda railway thus paved way for more appropriation of Africans land.

European colonization of Kenya was said to have had a great impact on the Kikuyu

(Sorrenson, 1967). Perhaps this was due to huge chunks of land that they alienated from them. The author continued to note that the railway solved the transport problem with the coast and opened the way for colonization of the healthy and fertile highlands and European settlement. The colonial government also encouraged the settlement of the highlands as it seemed the only way the railway and protectorate could make a financial income. The alienation of land in the highlands led to an increase of Kikuyu people in urban labour, especially in Nairobi. The migration to Nairobi must have been due to proximity and availability of employment.

The enactment of the East Africa lands order in council in 1901, the Crown Lands

Ordinance of 1902, the expulsion of Maasai from Rift Valley in 1904 and from

Laikipia in 1911 exacerbated land grievances as it intensified African group consciousness. The Native Land Trust Ordinance of 1930 set boundaries for reserves while the Carter Commission of 1932 and Kenya Highland Order in Council of 1939 fixed the boundaries for the white highlands (Githumu 1981). The alienation of

Africans’ land by the European settlers remained contentious issue in colonial period in Kenya. This was due to the untold suffering caused by lack of land among the

Africans in the reserves. Indeed it was one of the Africans’ grievances in their primary resistance to colonial rule.

The Commissioner for the Protectorate, using the Indian Acquisition Act of 1896, appropriated all lands situated within one-mile on either side of the Kenya Uganda railway for the construction of the railway. The Act was also used to compulsorily acquire land for other public purposes such as government buildings. In 1915, the

1902 Ordinance was repealed and replaced by a new Crown Land Ordinance that now declared all land within the protectorate as crown land, whether or not such land was occupied by the natives or reserved for native occupation (Ogendo 1991). The effect was that Africans became tenants of the Crown, with no more than temporary occupation rights to land. European imperialists must have assumed that the unoccupied land in Kenya had no owners. However this land seemed unoccupied and empty due to pre-colonial African farming methods, ecological catastrophes and nomadic pastoralism that led to occasional fallowing of land.

After the Kenya Uganda railway was built, the European colonialists were faced with the monumental task of repaying the debt incurred in the construction. Elkins (2005) asserted that the building of the railroad whose name was the ‘lunatic express’ seemed a minor feat due to the challenge that loomed of repaying the debt incurred in the construction to the British taxpayers. It became urgent for London to find a reliable group of people to develop the colony so as to pay the unprecedented debt which the

British Commissioner Sir Charles Eliot viewed as unwisely invested. In the

Commissioner’s eyes the Africans were not capable of repaying the debt as they lacked in every respect. He argued that they were black, uncivilised and too few to form a nucleus of cash crop producers that could pay for the “lunatic” line debt.

Perhaps Eliot judged the Africans wrongly as he did not give them an opportunity to grow the proposed cash crops.

The European landholding settlers were able to push for their land leases from 99 to

999 years (Elkins 2005). This must have sealed the fate of Africans land alienation in colonial Kenya. Definitely this development had profound effects on the lives of

Africans in Kenya while on the other side there was creation of a framework of exclusive ‘White Highlands’. The colonial land policies in general brought a new trajectory of land ownership among Africans in Kenya. The alienation of African land also laid the foundation of African primary nationalism.

2.3 The land question from 1946-1953

The quest for alienated land in Kenya had a turning point in 1945 when the World

War Two ended. Shiroya (1979) noted that the ex-soldiers of W.W.2 numbered not less than 98,000 in Kenya. The author further expounded that, they brought great political awakening and consciousness among the African masses as they participated in nationalists’ movements. Their interactions with Europeans and non- Europeans enabled them acquire a lot of knowledge and technical skills that helped in them in demanding for African rights in the post war period. The author mentioned that the

Europeans restricted their activities and therefore they had to join civilian organizations that were in existence and were pushing for the decolonization process.

They must have imparted and shared their experiences and skills which contributed immensely in the struggle for independence.

The Kikuyu ex- W.W.2 veterans expected a home coming that was going to bring improvement to their daily lives to commensurate with their contribution in the war

(Elkins 2005). Contrary to their expectations, they found their lives and those of fellow Kikuyu community unchanged and steadily worsening. Majority of the population, both Africans and European settlers continued to depend on land for their livelihoods and economic well-being making the demand for land an extremely complex issue. There was, therefore, rise of conflicts between Africans and

Europeans.

The W.W.2 seemed to have elicited a new wave in the quest for land among Africans in Kenya. Sorenson’s (1967) study noted that, the Second World War affected political, social and economic developments in Kenya. The colony was called on, to supply troops and foodstuffs for Abyssinian campaign, North Africa and Overseas.

This indeed, explained why the European recruited Africans soldiers to fight alongside the European soldiers. A lot of financial resources must have been required to finance the war. This entire requirement affected the running of the colony in many ways. The author continued to note that the British Government provided considerable sums for development of projects which could not be financed from colonial sources. This was due to diversion of finances to the war. The need for more food supplies definitely called for increased agricultural activities, further aggravating soil erosion. The author noted that, the aftermath of the demand for food led to soil erosion, improved agriculture, a hydrological survey and improvement of existing water supplies, agricultural education and housing projects for Africans. There were also plans for Europeans and Africans settlement.

The colonial government discriminated Africans ex-service men in land provisions

(Sorrenson, 1967). This was contrary to what had been promised to Africans before

the war. The colonial government went ahead with plans for settlement of Europeans mainly ex-servicemen in the highlands, while comparatively little was done for

Africans. The government thus made no attempt to provide land to African ex- servicemen and their promised land for settlement remained theoretical. The author also noted how the colonialists offered to provide employment opportunities to demobilize Africans. In addition, the colonial government offered vocational training to African ex-servicemen and assured them that, they could go back to their land in the reserves. The failure to recognize these African ex-service men may have prompted to rise of post-war unrest. Lack of recognition and denial of proper access to land could have caused psychological suffering among the ex-servicemen. Their bitterness led to their immediate joining of civilians’ organizations and movements like KAU and Mau Mau. One may therefore argue that, European colonialists’ land policies laid a fertile ground upon which African nationalists leaders got the grounds to pursue the decolonization process.

Harbeson, (1973) postulated that, the reconstruction of African societies and economies especially in Kikuyu country, did not occur in a political vacuum. The

Kenya African Union (K.A.U.) leadership which was formed rejected attempts by the government to improve the African economies by soil conservation techniques. They also opposed destocking policy as they believed that such changes were preparation for further European invasion of African lands. KAU was equally opposed to kipande systems, taxation policies, African wage labour conditions, limited education opportunities as well as inadequate political representation in the government. The colonial government was however not in any haste to address KAU grievances. This may have heightened KAU’s frustration leading to unrest among African

communities in the colonial European dominated system. The paramount grievance was, however, scarcity of land or limited access to land for many African communities who were naturally agrarian societies.

There were three theories that led to rise of Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. The first theory argued that, it was caused by the settlement of evicted Kikuyu labourers at

Olengurune. Gikandi (2009) noted that historians of nationalism of central Kenya stressed that Olenguruone was a site of major confrontation between colonial state and Gikuyu squatters over land rights. The second theory argued that Mau Mau was a war of rejecting European form of civilization in favour of African culture. The third theory stated that Mau Mau was a civil war between the Africans who had gained and those that not gained from European settlement and administration (Herbeson 1973).

Mau Mau movement therefore was formed in reaction to denial of economic, political and social independence of Africans. Mau Mau movement and KAU were rooted on the quest for political independence which would be followed by return of African land and other social and economic. The movement and the party incorporated ex- servicemen and other African elites. It also got considerable support from the African peasants especially in “central” Kenya who were hoping to get back their alienated land.

Land was always a sensitive and emotive issue among Kenyan societies. This was because majority of the people relied on it to for their survival. The peasants of Kenya never viewed land as a privilege, they always regarded it as one of the hosts of those fundamental rights that could not be substituted and could not be allowed to be

sacrificed on the political altars of selfish landlords (Githumu 1981). This assertion thus cemented the fact that, KAU and Mau Mau were formed due expropriation of the best agricultural land belonging to Africans by a small minority of European settlers

Alila, Kinyanjui, Wanjohi (1985) noted that by the end of colonial period in Kenya, a total of more than 7.5 million acres had been alienated and were in the hands of 3600

European farmers. The land was given under 999 years lease, 99 years while others were on freehold. All this land was alienated from Africans, through the various land policies that had been enacted since the establishment of colonial rule in Kenya. As the European settlers embarked on farming, the Africans became squatters in their own country as they were moved to reserved areas.

Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2016) explained that the African lives in reserves in colonial period was characterised by poverty and suffering. Due to scarcity of land, there was no enough food for many families. He mentioned that this caused bitterness and misery among the Africans. These experiences forced him to migrate to Nairobi to escape the rural poverty. He further reckoned that Africans could even engage in illegal trade when they failed to get employment in Nairobi. The illegal trade were such activities like sale of locally brewed liquor which at times landed Africans in trouble. This informant pointed out that, Africans opted for the life in towns as it was easier to get money compared to the rural areas. This explained the origin of the landless poor Africans in Nairobi in colonial period. The interaction of Africans who had experienced land alienation could have led to rise of nationalism in urban areas.

2.4 The Swynnerton plan of 1954 and its effects on distribution of land in Kenya.

Many Kenyans owned fragmented pieces of land which were not very productive before the Swynnerton plan. Herberson (1973) noted that before 1955, Africans used to have many parcels of land fragmented in many parts of the country. According to

European administration the fragments were seen as an obstacle to rural economic development. Individuals also lacked legal documents of ownership that could be used as collateral. Initially there was land consolidation done between 1952 and 1953 which was spearheaded by Africans. They had embarked on exchanging fragments to gain consolidated holdings. However, from 1955 the colonial government was at the centre stage of the process.

Land consolidation became an essential element in the colonial governments’ campaign to create a stable middle class of politically conservative Kikuyu. This class was to become a counterpoise against the future re-emergence of militant nationalism especially among the Kikuyu (Herbeson 1973). The colonial government used this process to reward those loyal to them with large and better land holdings. Indeed, this was meant to show those in Mau Mau that being in the militant group did not pay.

However, this move did not deter the Mau Mau movement from pressing on with their demands. It was, therefore, evident that land consolidation in central Kenya was done while Mau Mau fighters were away from home. They must have received a rude shock on returning home only to find that even the small parcels of land they owned prior to the war were registered under another relative who had not participated in the struggle for liberation.

In Thurton’s (1987) study, Swaynnerton plan was described as an agricultural programme responsible for consolidation and registration of land in central province.

The consolidated holdings would be created through buying, selling and exchange of fragments of land. According to the European colonialists it was meant to break the cycle of land deterioration and rural poverty by moving the society from subsistence to commercially-oriented farming. Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2017) and Jane

Nyambura (O.I 01/11/16) reckoned that, the consolidation of land made some families landless especially where the male head of family was absent during the consolidation and registration. This consolidation thus favoured the families who had a male head of the family. The families whose head was away due to Mau Mau rebellion were highly disadvantaged as they were not there to choose their preferred location of land.

There was a wrong assumption by the colonial government that, the Swynnerton plan would resolve the land crisis in “central province”. According to Musyoka (2006) and

Berry (2002) conflicts over land were central to Kenya’s political economy and in particular, the displacement of African societies. The colonial government assumed that land consolidation would change the face of Kikuyu land and bring up middle class group of farmers. It was assumed that, the farmers would be too busy in their land to worry about politics. Therefore, land consolidation was used by colonial government as a ploy to divide the civilian. Indeed, it may have aimed at alienating the fighters from the rest of the civilians so as to contain the spread of their ideas. This strategy may have worked to the benefit of colonialist as one of the consequences of

Mau Mau uprising was creation of division among Africans. Those who were allocated land may have been viewed as collaborators by the Mau Mau veterans.

Although the colonial administration had argued that land registration was for making

African land economically viable, the motive seemed different. During the State of

Emergency in Kenya between 1952 and 1959 more Africans lost their land. Alila

(1985) noted that, when several of those held in Mau Mau detention camps returned to their homes, they were shocked to find other people had secured irrevocable legal claims to their land. Therefore the Mau Mau and their supporters had their land confiscated by the colonialists and given to the colonial loyalists like the home guards and chiefs in pretext of land consolidation and registration. The plan also helped some

Africans to accumulate property at the expense of their relatives.

There was close monitoring of implementation of Swynnerton plan by the colonial authorities. Thurton’s (1987) study mentioned that, the plan was implemented in

“Central Province” in conjunction with the re-establishment of administration control.

The author noted that, the degree of control in the province had not gone unquestioned and was increasingly under the scrutiny of the Secretariat, the Governor, the Colonial Office and others in England. The politicians and Mau Mau fighters were said to be in detention or forest as the process was carried out and therefore lost out. The committee in charge of consolidation was under pressure to deprive them their land. The chiefs, headmen and elders decided on who was to be excluded in the allocation of the consolidated land. Where they were not deprived they were given the rocky and steep slopes. It was, therefore, evident that the Swynnerton plan left those involved in Mau Mau disadvantaged. Therefore the plan did not solve the issue of land alienation but rather intensified the problem among the Africans in Kenya.

2.5 The expansion of Nairobi as an urban centre

There was no existence of Nairobi as an urban centre until the European settlement in the area. Morgan (1967) asserted that many years before the Europeans came to East

Africa, Nairobi was known to Kikuyu and Maasai societies not as a city or even as a village but as a watering place for their cattle. The author mentioned that, the birth of

Nairobi came as a historical accident. This was when the railway team decided to call a temporary halt and established a depot with stores and stables. This was further strengthened by the moving of the railway headquarters from Mombasa to Nairobi and government administrative offices from Machakos to Nairobi. This was for the purpose of centralising the government, social and economic activities around the railway. Werlin’s (1974) study also affirmed that Nairobi was established 300 miles from Indian Ocean as railroad depot and a convenient stopping place en route to

Uganda. These factors thus formed the background upon which the city’s foundation was laid.

In the Nairobi district political record book, (KNA/DC/NBI/1/1), it was noted that

Nairobi formed a district of Ukamba Province until 1920 when it became an extra provincial District. It was further stated that hardly any of the old political records survived, possibly owing to the fire that gutted down the offices in 1939. This meant that there were some important political documents for Nairobi that were destroyed by the fire. Morgan (1967) stated that Nairobi was an extra-provincial district which included a Game Park, some of the peri-urban residential suburbs and some ranching to the east. The large areas of the land which was used for Ranching to the east was said to be about 20 miles. The author noted that this was meant for unforeseeable future. The colonial land policies and the economic activities in the city may have

trigged the migration of many people to the town which became the hub of socio- economic and political activities. The ranching to the east may have been part of the land that was acquired by the Embakasi Ranching Company later in 1970s for economic and political development.

A commission of inquiry on the city, (KNA/RN/1/129) also described Nairobi as the capital city of Kenya and a modern town which began as small depot along the

Kenya- Uganda railway. It explained that, the railway reached Nairobi in May 1899 and the first township committee was established in 1900. Nairobi succeeded

Mombasa as the capital of the country in 1905 and became a municipal council with corporate rights in 1919 and a city by Royal charter in March 1950 when the town celebrated 50 years of local government. This fast growth of Nairobi between 1899 and 1950 could be attributed to the colonial activities and especially, the building of the railway line.

As per colonial government records, (KNA/RN/1/57) crown land in Nairobi was acquired gradually by the white’s government. In 1948 they acquired 79 570 acres, in

1949 it increased to 214 136 acres, in 1950 to 229 106 acres and in 1951 to 350 230 acres. Elkins, (2005) further postulated that European settlers were able to gain access to the central institutions of colonial government in Nairobi when their representatives like Lord Delamere and other notables became members of Kenya Legislative

Council. It was here that they were able to take control of colonial laws and regulations concerning land. Rosberg (1966) noted that Nairobi was laid out to accommodate a European and an Indian population and not an African one. The author further stated that although the town was an array of European expatriates,

hunters, settlers and traders that made up the first colonial community, the African population was always greater than European or Indian population. The colonialists thus never planned to accommodate Africans initially. This explained the reasons for lack of land and houses for Africans. This made Africans to live in poverty in Nairobi during the colonial and post independent epochs. Most of the Africans who settled in

Nairobi were those who had lost land in the rural areas.

Passels report (KNARN/1/27), noted that, after the declaration of emergency in

Kenya, an influx of Kikuyu men, women and children in the city became noticeable.

This report continued to note, there was a great deal of movement to and from Central

Province over the intervening period and some men and their families stayed in the city for a short time. However, the undoubted fact was that there was a very considerable number of Kikuyu in the city who arrived in the middle of January 1960 probably after relaxation of emergence laws. In his letter, Wilkinson (KNA/RN/I/126) also pointed that, a large number of Africans had migrated to towns and that such migration could not be halted. Elkins (2005) emphasised that there was depression in urban areas like Nairobi where there were many dispossessed squatters, impoverished peasants from the reserves who had migrated in search of work. This was said to have made African residential areas to be overcrowded while unemployment escalated and inflation skyrocketed. This group may have migrated due to landlessness created by relocation of Africans into reserves, Mau Mau and the Swynnerton plan of 1950s in

“Central Province” of Kenya.

‘

Mukanda (O.I 31/12/17) explained how Africans were living in poor houses in

Nairobi in colonial period but they still admired the urban life as it was easier to earn

money than rural areas. The informant was living in Majengo estate in1956 as he was employed by Asians and earned Kshs 6.00 as his monthly wage. He noted that

Africans could build semi-permanent structures after retirement which they could rent to their fellow Africans. The desire to earn as a landlord from such structures made him to try many illegal businesses including selling of illicit brew. However, lack of a pass book landed him in trouble with colonial authorities hence imprisoned and later he was deported to his rural home in Nyeri. Since he was determined to own land and a house in Nairobi he came back in post-independence era.

Elkins (2005) noted that with the declaration of the state of emergency, the colonial government believed Nairobi was the strongest base of the Mau Mau movement.

They believed Nairobi was the supply base from which Mau Mau obtained recruits, supplies, money and ammunition. Therefore on April 24th 1954 Britain’s military forces under the command of General Sir George Erskine launched an ambitious operation where they purged nearly all the Mau Mau within the city. This assault was referred to as “Operation Anvil”. Those associated with Mau Mau were taken to detention camps while others were deported to Kikuyu reserves which were highly congested. Despite this purge, Africans were still resilient and subsequent records portrayed that their numbers continued surging high in Nairobi.

The minutes of a working party on illegal squatters held in Nairobi by city council chiefs (KNA/RN/1/45) noted that the population in Nairobi was 250 000 in 1959and

800 000 in 1963. Most of these people were said to have moved to Nairobi after the lifting of the emergency laws. The city council chief officers also conceded that a considerable number of people migrated to Nairobi which was also identified as the

strongest magnet in Kenya. The growth of the city was posited to have been a very serious problem. The migration and the imbalance between the population and the available socio-economic facilities posed a major challenge to the urban planning and administration.

Haddon’s report of 1962 on Nairobi (KNARN/1/45) warned that any plan for housing

Africans migrants in the city would have the effect of attracting many more thousands. He explained that housing and provision of land was allowed in Accra town in Ghana and its population of 260,000 before independence increased to

600,000 after independence. His argument thus warned on any attempt of providing settlement to African immigrants in the city on the eve of independence in Kenya. In the light of the argument, this could have led to the emergence of a group of landless people with no decent houses to dwell in Nairobi. However, despite this warning there was still a huge migration of Africans to Nairobi as evidenced in the events that followed.

The public health inspectors’ 1963 report, (KNA/RN/1/1/126) noted that the evolutionary processes African housing had undergone since Uganda Railways first decided to make its headquarters at Nairobi was quite a remarkable improvement in living conditions. The processes had been influenced by cultural, national, racial, social, economic, political and most important, health considerations. The report further stated that the urbanisation of Africans would be of necessity be slow as it cuts across ethnic ties and traditions. It also suggested that, some progress in the right direction could be fostered by encouraging the urban dwellers to build their own homes on a properly planned and supervised basis. There was a proposal for tenant

purchase schemes and garden estates in the peri-urban area to provide a compromise between rural and urban conditions suggested for Nairobi’s African population.

Although they may have appeared excellent ideas in principle, there were many practical complications. Many Nairobi residents could not afford the cost of city council houses or mortgage paid for state constructed houses. This forced many to continue living in rented houses or in slums as they could not afford to buy land in urban areas.

In a memo to town clerk in 1965, (KNA/RN/1/45) it was indicated that illegal squatters had made their temporary homes in the area near Mathari, hoping to make their residence there. In another memo, (KNA/RN/1/45) there was an advice to demolish houses for African squatters. This memo noted that the African huts had been demolished on two occasions by the city inspectorate. It was very ironical of the government to demolish Africans houses and describe them as squatters in their own country after their land was alienated by European colonialists.

In his letter, the Nairobi D.C. in 1965, (KNA./RN/1/45) to the Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Land, he acknowledged that about 50 families living as squatters.

They were composed of people from “Central,” “Nyanza”, “Western” and “Eastern provinces”. They were living in temporarily built huts erected for them by their former employers. They had originally rented part of a farm from their former owner

Mr.VanReasburg to use as a quarry but the contractor closed down and sold the land to the president. These farms were Pickwells farm, Block ‘s’ farm, Martin’s farm,

Stewart’s farm and Dominico’s farm, all which neighbours Embakasi Ranching

Company. This proved on existence of squatters near or in every settler farm in

Nairobi and its environs.

Werlin (1974) expounded that of all problems that faced Nairobi City Council in dealing with the rapid population growth during the 1960s, housing was the most intractable. He further pointed that the City Council made about 20 per cent of its budget for housing but about 15 000 households still needed houses by 1966 and 30

000 by 1969. This explained the reasons behind mushrooming of illegal squatters in the city as more people continued migrating to the city. Kiruthu (2006) explained that the African migrants were made of ex-detainees expatriated from Nairobi during emergency and thousands of school leavers who sought better employment and higher wages in the city. Majority of these migrants were landless and lacked proper housing hence they had to seek for a place to settle since the government did not have a solution to their problem.

The town clerk of Nairobi J. P Mbogua (KNA /RN/1/45) in 1970 while addressing the issue of squatters argued that, the council and the government in general had to ensure the land was made available for settlement of the landless with no means of finding accommodation. The town clerk reckoned that the city could not stop the flow of the people into the city. Therefore, they had to meet the various social demands of a large number of people in an urban setting. He continued to stress that these people had to be directed to the land and assisted towards a better way of living. He suggested that this could be done by initiating a scheme of between 2000 to 3000 acres of land not far from Nairobi. This kind of proposition could have led to emergence of land companies and schemes to resolve the landlessness crisis in the city.

In Shimechero’s letter from the ministry of economic planning and development,(KNA/RN/1/45) in 1970, it was acknowledged that the ‘urban squatters’ problem was large, growing, urgent and delicate that solution called for some ingenious and large scale programmes. It also noted that the size and gravity of the situation required the close collaboration of central and local government. The ministry was also impressed with the deep dedication and sincerity in which Nairobi was displaying in the approach to the complex dilemma of shelter and landlessness for families with hardly any income. Nairobi was commended for pushing ahead so energetically with efforts to help the squatter situation

In his speech, Jackson Angaine, (KNA/RN/1/46) as the Minister for Land and

Settlement informed a meeting on 28th January 1970 said that, his ministry had carried out a survey in October 1969 into the problem of landless people in Nairobi and it had found that, 1692 families qualified for consideration for resettlement. His ministry therefore planned to resettle these families in order to ease the council’s problem. This message from the minister thus affirmed that the government had resolved to help the landless people living in Nairobi.

2.6 Development of the settlement schemes from 1963

After the attainment of independence, Jomo Kenyatta’s government embarked on programmes to provide land to Africans. Kieyah (2010) explained that instead of overhauling the colonial land policies to reflect the interest and aspirations of its citizens, Kenyatta’s government pursued vigorously the inherited land reforms with minor modifications in favour of political elites. The adoption of land policies that

were skewed in favour of European colonialists and the African political elites marked the beginning of Neopatrimonialism in Jomo Kenyatta administration. He seemed to agree with the European settlers’ proposal on the need to compensate them for having “developed” the White Highlands. In the East African Standard (26th Jan

1962), Kenyatta asserted that Africans were not to sit idle and wait for Uhuru

(independence) to get land from nothing. He said that the government should get to work and face realities. He asserted that, if there was any land that would be given it ought to be given to somebody who needed it and not to those with money. This however did not solve the problem of the landless poor as only those with money could acquire land after purchasing from the former white highlands. Kenyatta seemed to have departed from the position held by K.A.N.U members like Oginga

Odinga and Bildad Kaggia that the land question should be settled by an African government after independence. This marked the beginning of political divisions in

K.A.N.U as far as the land policy was concerned.

Prior to independence, the colonial government crafted ways of making economic gains from the incoming Africans’ government. Bates’s (2005) noted that, by the time revolutionary forces from below and pressures of Whitehall from above had made independence inevitable, the Department of Lands and Settlement had crafted plans for the transfer of lands from European to African ownership in such detail that, they had circulated in international markets, appraised and funded to the tune of over 20 million pounds all within a few months’ time. Hazlewood’s (1985) also confirmed that the transfer of European farms to Africans began in Kenya a few years before independence and the main principles of the programmes of land transfer and settlement could not be separated. It was therefore evident that the issue of selling the

white highlands to Africans was sealed just before independence and Kenyatta government had accepted the arrangement proposed by the whites.

The payment of appropriated land by Africans was beyond the expectations of those who struggled for independence. In East Africa Standard (31st Jan 1962), Bildad

Kaggia, told a large African rally that landlessness in the country had to be ended and that Africans would refuse to buy the land. The colonial secretary seemed to lack the support of some to the handful of Kikuyu radicals in parliament led by Bildad Kaggia, whose attacks on the government policies finally led to his departure to the back benches in parliament in June 1964. The end of political colonialism thus seemed to have come to an end but not for economic independence as the question of landlessness was far from being resolved. Lamb (1974) also observed that the opposition to land settlement policies remained confined for most part to the handful of Kikuyu radicals in parliament led by Kaggia. Despite Kaggia’s spirited effort, the government implemented the negotiated package of refunding the departing settlers to the letter. This aggravated the question of squatters as Africans continued being landless in an independent country.

The colonial government schemed means of providing the African government with funds to buy land. According to Kanyinga (2008),it was pointed out that, within the highlands, land reform took place in the context of funding from British government, and the World Bank. This method of land acquisition was popularly referred to as settlement schemes. Herberson (1973) explained that those with no land, especially, after the consolidation of land became beneficiaries of the settlement schemes such as

Haraka and Ushirika schemes. Mbithi (1975) also affirmed that the Haraka settlement

schemes in Thika formerly known as squatter settlement schemes were carried out as low-cost settlement primarily on mismanaged or abandoned farms in former European areas. Kanyinga (2008) pointed out that, the largest of this scheme was located in Rift

Valley and that it was used to settle the Kikuyu as they had the largest number of squatters and were land-hungry in the highlands and the reserves. This was said to have aroused ethnic animosity in the region since the Kikuyu were viewed as the major beneficiaries of the programme. The settlement schemes may not have quenched the thirst for land in the country, but they must have lowered the political temperatures in demand for land though in small margins. It was ironical for the

Kenyan government to get loans from western countries to loan their own citizens to buy their appropriated land back.

Jomo Kenyatta’s government formulated methods of resettling the landless in different settlement schemes. Anderson (2008) pointed out that, at the end of the

1950s, a programme for the transfer of land from Europeans known as the Million

Acre Scheme (MAS) was developed. It was later implemented between 1962 and

1967 to facilitate the African settlement on about 1.17 million acres of land within the white highlands. The white highlands land was sold to the willing and financially able

Africans. This definitely sealed the fate of the landless poor Africans whose land had been appropriated earlier. The programme seemed to favour those who were financially capable or with a reliable source of income. The historical land injustices in Kenya that were started by colonialists were further strengthened by the policies of

Kenyatta’s government. Syagga (2010) mentioned that the successive post-colonial governments under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Moi sustained the colonial policies of infringement of the citizens’ rights to land. The policies of

Kenyatta government thus cemented the Neopatrimonialism paradigm in Kenya as state bureaucracy was used in giving of land in the settlement schemes.

There were different forms of settlement schemes formed based on Africans financial and farming knowledge. Boone (2012) explained that, the land transfer programme created a total of 123 states-run settlement schemes which generally ranged in size from five thousand to ten thousand acres. The author further stated that, most of the settlements were designed either as low or high density schemes. The low density schemes were divided into parcels of 8-16 hectares that were designed for commercial farming. The high density schemes were subdivided into parcels of 4-6 hectares and were designed for subsistence farming. The government was said to have settled half million people on the former white highlands by 1970 out of a population of 11.2 million. Therefore there were still many Kenyans who were not settled by 1970 and the quest for more land continued.

The acquisition of land in the settlement schemes was not free as it involved huge amount of money. Leo’s (1978) study noted that, the difficult in the settlement schemes programmes stemmed from the large loans commitments that one had to take and repay. This therefore required any African granted the loan to ensure of the land productivity, so as to repay the loan. Due to this, it was therefore not all the landless

Kenyans were accommodated in the settlement schemes as many could not access the loans to purchase the land. In addition one had to proof the ability to make the land productive as the loan was to be paid with the profit made from the sale of the farm proceeds. Therefore, any African who had no experience in management of modern

farming had no place in the MAS. If a farmer failed in management he would fail to raise the required amount in the loan repayment.

All Africans who had some money were accorded an opportunity to buy land in the settlement schemes. Mbithi(1975) noted that the largest portion of the M.A.S was the

84-high density schemes established for farmers with little knowledge and little money. They were to pay 10 pounds and a transfer fee and each of them got 27 acres.

The low density schemes were planned for farmers with agricultural knowledge, experience and capital. Each farmer got 37 acres in the low density schemes which were to be paid through loans. The next category was Yeoman Farms with 100 acres where larger farms were established targeting farmers with considerable experience and capital. The farms were unsuitable to sub-divide and some had specialized crops or livestock. The last category were large scale co-operatives and ranches .These large scale schemes on dry land were suited to large scale ranching or wheat farming.

About 16 co-operatives were established for approximately 1700 farm families on about 178,000 acres. The author argued that the MAS aim was socio-political. The president therefore used the land to reward his supporters among the Kikuyu so as to gain politically.

Kanyinga (2008) noted, that the Kikuyu found their way to Lamu, Kilifi Trans Nzoia and Uasin Gishu settlement schemes. Perhaps the migration of Kikuyus in almost all settlement schemes can be justified by Elkins (2005) assertion that of all the indigenous groups affected by British colonial rule in Kenya, none experienced a transformation as intense as the Kikuyu. The author argued that, this ethnic group was the most affected by colonial government’s policies of land alienation or

expropriation and European settlement. Therefore, Jomo Kenyatta’s government aimed at satisfying Kikuyus’ quest for land so as to get support and ensure political stability. This strategy by the government was paramount since land was the second grievance after political independence in the struggle for independence. Ogot (1995) noted that by 1970, more than two-thirds of the old European mixed farms had been given to 50,000 families while the remaining third was of about million acres was sold in the next decade. However, these measures solved the land issue to only a small percentage of the population as the many could not afford to pay for the cost of land.

It was pointed out that, Kenyatta’s government did not handle the land question as expected by many Africans. Klopp (2000) noted that Kenyatta used former settler land as patronage to solidify his support and build alliances. It was noted that many former loyalists of Jomo Kenyatta became prominent in the new KANU government.

In this way, the land question was transferred to the new context. In brief, in post- colonial period, access to land and property rights in land remained a function of patronage and political manoeuvring at local and national levels as well as ability to pay. This points out that, the provision of land after independence was in the hands of a few powerful politicians who were close to the president. Neo-patrimonialism was characterized by use of land as rewards to those who supported the government. Land was also used to accumulate wealth by those in leadership. The state bureaucracy was also applied in acquisition of land in the settlement schemes. Unlike what many nationalists hoped for, land was sold to Africans and not given for free as anticipated during the struggle for independence.

The most disappointed with Kenyatta’s policies on land at independence were those who had fought for independence. Kanogo(1987) affirmed that, Kenyatta explained to the puzzled freedom fighters like Bildad Kaggia and Achieng Oneko that the land transactions did not amount to the purchase of African land but only compensation to the settlers for developing the land. It was from this point that African political leaders started buying former settlers farms. The author continued to note that, the majority of the landless people were unable to raise even the basic sum needed as down payment for the purchase of land. It was logical for Africans to get back their appropriated land but ironically, this never came to pass as they found themselves at the mercy of the new African government. This meant that despite the political independence the economic and social liberation was yet to be realised. Indeed this marked another feature for Neopatrimonialism where accumulation of wealth surpassed justice. Africans had only obtained political independence but their access to economic and social justice was yet to be realised.

The Kenya government at independence maintained the colonial land tenure system that privileged land ownership practices introduced alongside exploitation of colonial regimes. The policies adopted by first African government were said to have created a fertile ground for corruption in land in Kenya. The greatest ironies in the history of land allocation in Kenya were what appear to have succeeded after the colonial period. This was what later facilitated to massive illegal and irregular allocation of public land by the government after independence (Mwasigire 2016; Southall 2005).

From 1965 onward, throughout the 1970s, the government emphasized privileged purchase and transfer of land (Kanyinga 2007). This explained the continued formation of more land buying companies even after a decade of independence. The

greatest beneficiaries were the political leaders and those with financial abilities. The political leaders mainly used the land for their own good. The landless Africans who deserved to get land were forgotten as politicians used the land to reward their supporters. Neopatrimonialism was characterised by corruption in provision of land.

The rich and the poor scrambled for land at times using illegal procedures. There were tendencies of grabbing the land by regime notables.

The land question seemed to have caused a major rift in the ruling party. One group supported the government policy on land while the second group opposed it vehemently. Kojo’s (2008) study postulated that, in the KANU party a radical faction rooted in nationalist position on land championed “Nyakua” (Kiswahili word for seizure, refers to the wholesale seizure of expropriated land) in the white highlands to settle the landless and squatters who had lived in the Rift Valley for decades. Those in the radical wing included Oginga Odinga and Bildad Kaggia. He continued to state that, those opposed to the radical wing were groups of liberals and proto- capitalists who sought to promote a free market in land. KANU’S liberal group, led by Tom

Mboya and Kenyatta preferred a cautious approach to the land question, fearing that any radical departure from existing reform would jeopardize economic growth by antagonizing relations with foreign investors. However the author noted that, by 1970, the radical nationalists who challenged resettlement were contained and the state carried out the land policies without any organized challenge. However according to

Kanogo(1987) the government incurred a lot of foreign debts while compensating the settlers leaving the country. The attainment of independence therefore, did not meet the economic expectation especially on access to land. This was another feature of

Neopatrimonialism where the state bureaucracy was used to push the government policies on land.

Kenyatta’s government thrived on with the land policies despite the opposition by the radical group. Berry (1993) noted that Kenyatta used the former settlers’ land as patronage to solidify his support and build alliances. Many of his former loyalists became prominent in the KANU government. The author explained that, the land question was transferred to the new context. The post-independence period access to land and property rights in land remained a function of patronage and political manoeuvring at local and national level. It was against this background that prominent

African leaders led the poor in formation of land buying companies to buy land from the former white highlands. Land was therefore used by political leaders to amass wealth and to gain political popularity which was a characteristic of

Neopatrimonialism.

2.7 Political independence and formation of land buying companies: 1963-1978

Since Jomo Kenyatta’s government did not fully resolve the quest for land among the landless, more land related problems were noted especially in urban areas. As

Musyoka (2006) noted, conflicts and quest for land became central to Kenya’s political economy since independence. The author continued to argue that in many urban centres, the laws on tenure and sub division and the prevalence of private ownership gave rise to extreme shortages of land for low income residential development. This may have aggravated the search for land by the urban poor in line

with trends of land ownership that emerged after independence. This explained the force behind formation of land buying companies in urban set ups.

Gachaga (2006) noted that, from 1963 the issue of land continued to dominate political discourse. The politicians used it and over and over to gain popularity and power. On one side politicians condemned government openly for not giving land to the landless, while on the other side the same politicians gave land to their cronies so as to support them in their political pursuit. The author stated that some Africans acquired land by joining co-operatives or limited companies. The companies purchased large farms which were later subdivided and shared out among the various members. He noted that, some co-operatives continued their operation of subdividing land and sharing it out to their members many years after independence. This pointed out rise of companies like the one in this study. The companies formed after independence according to this author were riddled with blunders, quick witted recoveries and fascinating power plays which were all spiced up with an occasional ting of unscrupulousness. The author further pointed that, the direction of these companies turned to be new bourgeoisies who used their power to acquire more land to give to their political cronies. This affirmed that, land buying companies in Kenya were the bedrock of neopatrimonialism. The new class of African bourgeoisies gave land to the proletariats whom they expected to support them in politics. The proletariats were also “land-hungry” and seemed willing to do anything to access the state resources. Therefore it can be asserted that, political leaders led to formation of land buying companies as politicians wanted to get support of the shareholders during the elections. Lack of land among many communities especially those whose land had been alienated during colonial times was another factor for their formation. The

landless were easily convinced by the political leaders to form groups that could pool their financial resources together to buy land.

Boone (2012), argued that, the state power was used to distribute and redistribute land in Rift Valley focusing on post 1960 Smallholders’ Settlement Schemes, land buying companies and settlement in forest reserves. The author further asserted that, in the late 1960s and 1970s, Kenyatta’s government also encouraged the formation of private land-buying companies that were often headed by regime notables and politicians. Land buying companies purchased or leased farms or estates in the former

White Highlands from government. They got the funds often from the Settlement

Fund Trustees (SFT). The land was then subdivided among individuals and smallholders holdings. Many ordinary Kenyans acquired land in the Rift Valley by purchasing shares in these companies. Under Jomo Kenyatta’s government, individual titles were rarely issued to members of co-operative societies who received state financing to purchase shares in group farms. This means that there was only one title deed for the land buying company, while individuals were given a certificate to prove they are members. Unfortunately the share certificate was not recognised in Kenya as legal documents to prove land ownership in law courts. Perhaps this explained the reasons why subsequent governments promised to ensure provision of titles to the shareholders in land buying companies. The government was also therefore responsible for formation of the land buying companies as it provided the loans to enable them purchase large parcels of land.

It was evident that only those with financial abilities could obtain land after independence. Herberson (1973), alluded that, those with financial and political

influence became the main beneficiaries of land holdings in the former white highlands. There was formation of land buying companies by different social groups so as to deal with financial institutions and sources of financing. Therefore, the former settlers’ farms became primary sites of intense competition between and among different land buying companies. This explained the reasons for emergence of land buying companies in various parts of the country as discussed in this study. Most of these companies sprouted in regions where landlessness was prevalent and people were familiar with existence of former settlers’ farms that were being sold. The peasants who had not managed to acquire land in the settlement schemes were able to pool their resources together to buy land as a group.

The acquisition of former settlers’ farms was regarded as the second land reform in

Kenya. Harbeson (2008) noted that, the second reform enabled Africans to buy land from European farmers who wished to liquidate their holdings as fast as possible before independence occurred in December 1963. Mukanda, (O.I 31/12/2017) mentioned that, the 1970s era was characterised by the transfer of land that was formerly owned by European to Africans. It was during this period that land buying companies cropped up as peasants pooled resources and bought shares in the companies which purchased land from former white settlers. Most of the companies emerged in areas where the population had been severely affected by land appropriation especially among the Agikuyu. The settler farms seemingly became the centre of attraction for land buying companies.

In some areas, conflicts were observed among communities that were interested in purchasing the land in the same location. Kanyinga (2007) asserted that, Sinendet

Farmers Company which was predominantly Kipsigis Company faced stiff competition in Rift Valley in acquiring land. They competed with another group of

20,000 Kikuyu peasants and differed over the purchase of settler farms in Nakuru and

Kericho between 1966 and 1968. This seemed to have been a battle between the indigenous inhabitants and the immigrants over repossession of the former white highlands. This kind of unhealthy competition must have elicited bitterness to those pushed out in the course of battling out for the settlers’ farms. The need to protect land that was formerly owned before colonization therefore made many Africans to form the land buying companies.

The committee of experts report on land headed by a former attorney general in

Kenya (Njonjo 1978) pointed out that, ethnic and class based competition was most intense between the Kikuyu and Kalenjin land buying companies in Rift Valley.

According to Weekly Review (8th Dec 1977 ), Ngwataniro Company Limited was a hugely successful farming and trading company founded and led by the late KANU

Nakuru Branch Chairman, Kihika Kimani. It acquired land worth more than Kshs 27 million. This included 100,000 acres of rich farm land in Nakuru, Njoro, Laikipia,

Solai, Mau-Narok and Elementaita areas. The land was acquired from 1967 to 1977.

The company was said to have been established for the purpose of finding land for the landless Kikuyus. It boasted of having a membership of more than 20,000, thus dominating the politics of Nakuru completely. In the Daily Nation, (19th Aug 2016) it was noted that, being close or being related to the person in power often paid handsomely. It was evident that, the late Kihika Kimani’s position in politics enabled him acquire land and wealth. He also used the land to gain political patronage in

Nakuru. The need to accumulate wealth could also be said to have motivated the

formation of the land buying companies. Accumulation of wealth by political leaders and use state power to get national resources were major practices of in land buying companies. The use of state powers to acquire land which in turn was used to gain political mileage was an aspect of neopatrimonialism.

The Weekly review (5th May 1975) quoted the chairperson of Ngwataniro Company,

Kihika Kimani proudly asserting that, their land buying company had not received a single cent from the government by way of loans. He continued to explain that they also never solicited for money through harambee for buying their land. This company was said to have been formed in 1969 to help the Kikuyu landless in Nakuru to acquire land for settlement and farming. It began by purchasing 29,527 acres of land mainly in Nakuru and by 1979 it had doubled this land. More often than not and from the beginning, business and politics in the company went together. Some of these leaders used the company platform to win parliamentary and civic seats in Nakuru

(Kanyinga 2009). The chairman of the group (Kihika Kimani) gained a lot of popularity for assisting many to acquire the land. This became evident in the political prowess that he attained and hence winning every subsequent general election. The activities of Ngwataniro Company proved that land was used in post-colonial era as a tool of gaining political mileage which was an aspect of neopatrimonialism.

The Weekly Review, (23rd Feb 1978) mentioned that, Gema Holdings was a notable land buying company in 1970s. The author however noted that, majority of the 6980 registered members; it was only directors who were registered as shareholders. It was for this reason that the government took the company to court on January 10th 1979 for failing to submit annual returns as expected. All the sleeping partners and

shareholders were ordered to register following a directive by the president. It was further noted that the kernel point was that thousands of Kenyans mostly ordinary people were deprived of their savings through a number of real and dubious companies operating as land and real estate agents. What the government seemed to question was the legal entitlement of the sleeping partners and the shareholders to the assets of the companies and societies. The government may have feared that the leaders of the company were likely to take advantage with the members’ investments.

In the Pambazuka news, (October 8th 2014) it was stated that Mbo i Kamiti Company was formed in the 1970s to buy the land left by colonialists. The peasant shareholders who contributed money to buy this former settlers’ farm were farmers from Kiambu and wives of former freedom fighters. They were to be settled on the land. The amount of money given by the shareholders and loans from banks was used to purchase coffee estates in Kiambu region. As Ogot (1995) noted, about 4 million acres of ranch land and plantations of coffee, tea and sisal remained in the hands of

Europeans longer as they were of high capital value. However they were eventually sold to indigenous farmers like those who formed Mbo I Kamiti. The name was adopted from river Kamiti that cut across the coffee estates. Mbo is a Kikuyu word which refers to the sound made by the water fall of Kamiti River. Hence Mbo I

Kamiti referred to the sound of the waterfall at Kamiti River.

2.8 Conclusion

The main aim of this chapter was to examine the factors that led to formation of land buying companies. It was evident in this chapter that, the formation of land buying

companies in Kenya was preceded by colonial land policies, formation of KAU and

Mau Mau activities which in turn led to formulation of the Swynnerton plan by the colonial government. This further aggravated landlessness among Africans. It was also pointed that Jomo Kenyatta’s government embarked on establishment of settlement schemes after independence to address the land question. Since many people were still landless, the government encouraged formation of land buying companies.

The factors that motivated the formation of land buying companies from 1963 can be summarized as, encouragement by Kenyatta’s government, landlessness among

Africans, need to protect land owned prior to colonization, to accumulate wealth and role of political leaders. The political elites in some mobilised the poor to pool resources to buy land for the purpose of creating a voting bloc and amass wealth. The companies were thus created for the purpose of achieving political mileage, social bases as well as power. Therefore it was the political elites’ motive to use land buying companies to consolidate their position among their landless. It was against this background that political leaders continued to further Neopatrimonialism by using the landless. They aimed at making the landless poor loyal to them especially during the general elections. These political leaders were also able to obtain a lot of wealth from the sale of this land. Land buying companies therefore enabled political leaders gain popularity that would help them defeat their opponents during the general elections.

The provision of land to the landless poor acted as a bait, it hooked and entangled them to the politics. It was against this background that there was a paradigm shift from colonial patrimonialism to neopatrimonialism under the African political elites.

The African leaders controlled political as well as economic power. Indeed this

entrenched Neopatrimonialism in Kenya. Having realised the genesis of land buying companies the next chapter will focus on expansion of Nairobi and the development of Embakasi Ranching Company.

3.0. CHAPTER THREE

THE EXPANSION OF NAIROBI AND DEVELOPMENT OF EMBAKASI

RANCHING COMPANY FROM 1979 TO 2002

3.1 Introduction

Chapter two analysed the salient features that led to formation of land buying companies from1963 to 1978. This chapter gives attention to expansion of Nairobi and the development of Embakasi Ranching Company from 1979 to 2002. It was mentioned earlier that the migration of people to Nairobi during the colonial and post- independence period led to myriad of challenges. Africans became squatters forcing them to live in slums. The migratory trends of Africans continued to cause strains in housing and land in Nairobi. The government made some attempts to address the question of squatters and housing in post independent era but the problem was not fully resolved. It was against this background that Embakasi Ranching was formed.

This period was associated with the administration of the second president of Kenya,

Daniel arap Moi. This chapter used Neopatrimonialism theory to demonstrate how

African leaders used land to gain economically and politically at the expense of the landless.

3.2. Expansion of Nairobi and land buying companies’ policies from 1979 to 2002

In his work Kiruthu (2006) noted that the policies enunciated by Daniel arap Moi administration on taking over power after the death of Jomo Kenyatta in 1978 included attempts of land reforms as well as the possibility of a land tax. These

policies were also mentioned in the Weekly Review (30th May 1980). The President

(Daniel arap Moi) had promised to pre-examine the validity of certain land transactions which had benefited members of the Jomo Kenyatta elite. He also issued a directive that, there would be a ceiling on land prices and undertook to consider the introduction of a land-holding ceiling. However all this did not last for long. Although the Embakasi Ranching Company was formed during Jomo Kenyatta’s administration through the SFT, the proposed radical policies of Daniel arap Moi did not affect the company as implementation was short lived.

In the Weekly Review (23rd February 1985) Moi had directed all land buying companies to register all their members and give the names to the registrar of societies. The kernel point was that thousands of ordinary Kenyans were being deprived of their savings through dubious companies operations. The companies gave less numbers than the true figures to the registrar of societies. It was therefore not uncommon to hear complaints from members of such companies and societies who were not satisfied with the manner in which those companies were run. The government was mainly concerned with the legal entitlement of the shareholders to the assets of the land buying companies and societies. The failure of the Moi regime to implement land reforms was due to the relationship between land and political control. As Kariuki (2008) argued, one could not understand Kenya’s failed democratic process without acknowledging the extent to which patrimonial politics were developed and sustained with land. This was what defined the ideals of political leaders in president Moi’s era. Neopatrimonialism was well embedded in the government policies on land.

The migration of Africans into Nairobi witnessed after independence continued thriving between 1979 and 2002. The government attempted to reduce the migration to Nairobi in vain. In his study Clayton (1974) mentioned that the government hoped that agricultural and land tenure reforms in Kikuyu land and African land development elsewhere would absorb large numbers of the unemployed in rural areas.

However this proved futile proved as the drift to the town gathered rather than lost the momentum. The author noted that, the growth of manufacturing and the lure of the city had all attracted increasing numbers to Nairobi. The pressure of the population that had migrated to Nairobi in the hope of getting jobs was being being felt by 1979.

The growing population made the government and individuals to come up with means of acquiring land and houses in the city. This explained one of the reasons behind the formation of the land buying company in this study.

Owour (2006) noted that the population of Nairobi grew from 2 314 000 in 1979 to 3

864 000 in 1989 and to 5 429 000 in 1999. This was probably due to socio-economic development in Nairobi. The UNHABITAT (2006) reported that Nairobi played an important role in the global, regional and local economy. This was through the offering of employment to 25% of Kenyans’ population. The availability of jobs and socio-economic development thus encouraged the migration of the people into the city. The growth of the population as per the UNHABITAT demographic surveys did not match with construction of houses. This prompted the then Nairobi City Council to come up with suggestions of dealing with the city challenges. Owour (2008) alluded that the second urban effort of independent state was the 1984-1988 Nairobi

City Commission Development Plans which outlined the development needs of all the sectors. The plan aimed at improving housing, health and environment, sewage, social

services, transport and public works, manpower development and financial management. However, the author pointed that the plan did not achieve anything as it was not implemented. The plan turned out to be theoretical rather than practical.

Probably this was due to lack of finances or lack of political will in the implementation. Therefore the challenges of housing continued among the urban poor and thus each had to make individual efforts to get a house.

In 1993, Owour (2008) further specified that the Nairobi City Council which later changed to be called Nairobi City County organised a stakeholders’ open forum referred to as Nairobi City Convention. It comprised of stakeholders, professionals and ordinary citizens. The aim of the convention was to map out strategies and practical solutions towards a better Nairobi. The convention made recommendations on use of space and physical planning, provisions of services, social sector, administrative, legal and political issues. Ironically these ideas were not actualized. It was not clear why the City Council wasted resources and time in the convention and failed to implement its recommendations.

Due to the housing crisis, many city residents by 2002 seemed to have resorted to self-help and communal struggle in improvement of their shelters. Some individuals built shanties while others joined hand to buy land. The houses in Embakasi Ranching were built by individuals after sub-division of the land. They were not serviced by the then City Council or even controlled. Each individual built as per their ability hence some were permanent while others were semi-permanent (O.I Kimani, 20/9/2016).

Owour (2008) also mentioned that the last City Council rental houses were built in

1978. The failure by Nairobi City Council to deal with housing issue led to emergence

of land buying companies like Embakasi Ranching that were meant to resolve the landlessness and inadequate housing in the city.

3.3 The formation of Embakasi Ranching Company

According to documents obtained from shareholders like Saka’s document on ‘facts about the company’ and eulogy of Samuel Mwangi Thuita it was pointed out that,

Embakasi Ranching Company land was bought from a white settler known as

Brigadier Wigon. The settler had registered the land under his company known as Juja

Properties East Africa Limited. Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2016) mentioned that

Brigadier Wigon was nicknamed by the people ‘Muhinja’ because of his slim body. In another document obtained from a share-holder during the study (copy of lease certificate) it was proved that, the Governor of Kenya granted the land on behalf of

Queen Elizabeth the second on 1st July 1963. The document further revealed that the company was granted the land on leasehold term that was to last for nine hundred and forty years and four months. Ironically as some settlers left the country in 1963, others were granted land probably so as to be compensated for ‘developing’ it as witnessed in this case.

It was explained that Brigadier Wigon was not willing to sell the land when the chairman of Embakasi Ranching Company approached him. The first chairman of the

Embakasi Ranching Company was the late Godgrey Muhuri Muchiri. The chairman was also the Member of Parliament for Embakasi constituency from 1974 to 1976 and from 1983 to 1987. Therefore he approached the chairman of the powerful GEMA holdings, the late Njenga Karume who was also a member of parliament by then to

assist him get the land. Njenga Karume took Muhuri Muchiri to the late president

Jomo Kenyatta for intervention. The president instructed the Minister of land the late

Jackson Angaine who was also a member of GEMA to assist them (Eulogy of

Mwangi Thuita). Therefore due to the president’s influence Brigadier Wigon had no choice but to part with the land. This information was also affirmed by company share-holders and officials (Joakino Mukanda O.I 31/12/2016, Kimani O.I 18/11/16).

The European settler gave in probably due to pressure from the government and assurance of financial compensation. This portrayed how the state powers were used to acquire property which was a major feature of Neopatrimonialism. It was clear that those close to the head of state were able to use their influence to convince the president to acquire land.

It was acknowledged by many shareholders that, the determination of Muhuri

Muchiri enabled them to get the land (Jane Nyambura O.I 11/10/16, Esther Wanjiku

9/11/16, Joakino Mukanda 31/12/16, Samuel Mwangi Thuita 26/5/17, Kimani

18/11/16). Muhuri Muchiri must have struggled to secure this land so as to create a voting bloc that ensured that he won the general election as witnessed in 1983. The president assisted his cronies acquire land who would in turn used it to gain political mileage. This was one the characteristics of Neopatrimonialism that was widely witnessed in post independent Kenya. The government rewarded the politicians who supported government policies with land. The politicians would use the land to gain wealth and create their voting bloc.

The Embakasi Ranching land was bought at a cost of Kshs nine million which was obtained through SFT. This cost was affirmed by Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) and from

the document on ‘facts about the company’ by a shareholder known as Saka. They obtained the loan as the land was expensive. An agreement was reached and the payment was paid through the SFT in 1975. The money for paying the loan was paid through gradual sale of shares to the members. Kimani (O.I 18/11/16) mentioned that the loan was paid slowly but it was eventually cleared. The chairman of the company during the time of this study confirmed that they had fully paid the loan (Samuel

Mwangi Thuita O.I 26/5/2017).

Indeed as Veit (2010) noted, in Jomo Kenyatta’s regime, ethnic favouritism and political patronage also played an important role in land acquisitions as did corruption. Given the role played by the powerful Kikuyu politicians, the systems favoured them and their land buying companies. It was also evident that Jomo

Kenyatta’s government played a big role in acquisition of land for land buying companies. As witnessed in the case of Embakasi Ranching Company, the beneficiaries were political elites. They were facilitated to acquire huge chunks of land as way of ensuring they continued to support the president in his policies. This was a clear manifestation of Jomo Kenyatta government’s Neopatrimonialism where the land was used to create clienteles’. In the case of Embakasi Ranching Company the clienteles were the political leaders and the shareholders.

The Embakasi Ranching Company documents showed that the company was incorporated as public company in 1975. This date was also confirmed by documents of some shareholders which arrayed that they paid for their parcels of land in 1975.

This was contrary to what some of the members’ held that, the company was formed in 1978. However, some shareholders explained that in the initial years the company

was mainly concerned with recruitment of shareholders and had insignificant activities in their land (O.I Jane Nyambura 11/10/16, Esther Wanjiku O.I 9/11/16).

They also did not invest in more economic activities other than what had been initiated by the European settler. They also never embarked on the sub-division of the land in the initial years.

Embakasi Ranching Company aimed at giving land to the landless in Nairobi but they mainly targeted, widows of Mau Mau veterans, Mau Mau veterans, Nyakinyua women group, the urban poor and public servants who had no land in Nairobi

(Kimani O.I 18/11/16). Probably, some of these were among the people that migrated to Nairobi due to poverty, lack of jobs and landlessness in the rural areas as discussed earlier in this chapter. This was affirmed by the people interviewed who claimed to have lived in the Eastland estates of Nairobi like Makadara, Maringo, Ofafa Jericho and Shauri Moyo. In a document written by Embakasi Ranching Company to eulogise

Samuel Mwangi Thuita, it was noted that the idea of buying land was hatched when

Muhuri Muchiri won the Embakasi parliamentary. It was noted that those who were campaigning for him, led by Mwangi Thuita, Kariuki Mwaganu, Mathenge Nduhiu and women from Makadara and Jericho estates requested Muhuri to look for a piece land where the poor in Embaksi constituency could be settled. The company also welcomed other people from outside Nairobi especially from Kiambu. In the same document it was stated that the directors and other leaders like the late M.P from

Kirinyaga, Stephen Kiragu and Njenga Karume also mobilised people from the constituencies they came from to buy shares. Although these political leaders claimed to help the poor acquire land it was evident that land was also used make them popular among the electorates.

One former member of the Nyakinyua group, Hannah Nduta (O.I 31/12/16) observed that the first chairperson of this company, Muhuri Muchiri was keen in making it easier for women to acquire land. She explained that, the ‘Nyakinyua’ women who used to sing for Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya’s first president) at Kamukunji grounds were given priority in accessing this land. The women were from estates in the East land estates of Nairobi like Makadara, Jericho, Jerusalem, Mbotela, Shauri Moyo among others mentioned earlier. The informant continued noted that, the members of

Nyakinyua women group were of different age groups. They (Nyakinyua women group) had different names according to the attire they wore while singing for the president. They wore colours like green, yellow, red and brown among others. Many of these women were landless and could not afford to buy land at the market price by then. The formation of Embakasi Ranching Company must have been reprieve for them as there was hope of acquiring land in Nairobi for them.

The target of women in provision of land was perhaps due to the fact the many women were not in control of sources of money and other economic assets that brought income since colonial period. One letter from the district commissioner in

Nairobi (KNA/RN/1/60) recorded a request by Nairobi Advisory Council and Tribal

Committee formed to advice on the control of women in hawking. In the letter it was argued that the decision to prohibit them was not that hawking was immoral but rather that the practice tended to attract women in town where they got into trouble. The decision to give women priority in acquiring land in the Embakasi Ranching

Company was thus a reprieve to many who had been wallowing and languishing in abject urban poverty since colonial epoch.

A document that highlighted on facts of the company written by a shareholder known as Saka to sensitise other shareholders, exhibited that, the main objective of the company was to buy land, subdivide it and settle their members who were suffering due to poor housing in the city. The company was thus formed to help the landless and those with no decent houses in Nairobi as mentined earlier. Daniel Kinyanjui (O.I

27/4/2017) pointed that, other than Embakasi Ranching Company, the president

(Jomo Kenyatta) also facilitated the acquisition of land in Kayole and Don Holm estates. This informant explained that Don Holm was granted to Nairobi City Council who sold the land out to Nairobi residents.

Samuel Mwangi Thuita who was the chairman of the company at the time of this study (O.I 26/5/2017)explained that Embakasi Ranching Company key officials in formation of the company were, Godfrey Muhuri Muchiri, Njenga Karume, Jeremiah

Gitangu, Kariuki Mwaganu, Esther Wanjiku, Salome Githara, Florence Richu and

Wamunge. Jane Nyambura (O.I/11/10/16], Esther Wanjiku(O.I 9/11/2016) and

Kimani (O.I/20/9/2016) who was the property manager at the time of the research also affirmed these as the first officials of this company. This was further confirmed by report of directors during the annual general meeting held on December 1983. The report identified the directors as Godfrey Muhuri Muchiri who was the chairman at the time, Kariuki Mwaganu, Justus Mathenge Nduhia, Mwangi Thuita, Jeremiah

Gitangu, Esther Wanjiku Kimani, Teresiah Wanjiru and James Njenga Karume.

Two of the founder members, Njenga Karume and Muhuri Muchiri were said to have used the land to gain popularity in politics. Muhuri Muchiri wanted members of his

Embakasi constituency to get land so that they could support him politically. Njenga

Karume was said to have brought his political supporters from Kiambu. In each case, land was used as a bait to woo the people into their political camps (Mukanda O.I

31/12/2017). Mwangi Thuita was able to raise his social status as the chairperson of other directors after the demise of Godfrey Muhuri Muchiri. He was said to have become a Kikuyu senior elder due to his position in the company. This was confirmed by the plates seen in his office during the interview. It was also mentioned after his demise (Eulogy of Mwangi Thuita)

The former chairman of Embakasi Ranching Company, late Samuel Mwangi Thuita

(Taken by the researcher in May 2017)

3.4 The development of Embakasi Ranching Company 1979 to 2002

Although Embakasi Ranching was formed in 1975 as earlier stated, the sale of shares commenced in 1976.After the sale, Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2016) pointed that Embakasi

Ranching first group of shareholders were informed about the certificates of their shares through a Taifa leo advert in 1989. Although this informant retained this newspaper cutting, it did not have the specific date. The first group to be awarded plots of land were 513 members. The informant added that, in the same advertisement, the company’s board of directors stated that it was preparing 697 certificates for more shareholders. From the contact address of the shareholders in the advertisement it was noted that majority of the members were from various parts of

Kenya. Some were from the environs of Nairobi like Ruiru, Thika, Kikuyu, Kiambu,

Limuru, Gatundu and Ngong. However a few others were from places such as

Naivasha, Kajiado, Nyeri, Kerugoya, Kitale, Murang’a, Eldoret, Molo, Kangundo and

North Kinangop. The list of shareholders also portrayed that majority of the shareholders were Agikuyu. Nevertheless it was also evident in the list that members of other ethnic groups were also listed as shareholders

Tostensen (2001) argued that land buying companies played a major role in initial land acquisition and that they were the main vehicles for the poor to acquire land in

Kenya. The author continued to assert that land buying companies mobilised people to find realistic and practical solutions on collective basis to their land and housing problem. This indeed was one of the reasons behind formation of land buying companies like Embakasi Ranching Company as there was need to address the question of landless poor in Nairobi.

Most of Embakasi Ranching Company land in Nairobi was located Ruai in Njiru sub- county (Jane Nyambura O.I 9/10/16). She indicated that the name Ruai originated from the name of a colonial settler called after the vegrtation in the area. However, according to Mukanda (O.I 31/12/16) the name Ruai emanated from the thorny trees that were common in the area in the past. Both theories, however, seem to have led to the adoption of the name Ruai in the region as both agree that the name emanated from a particular trees that grew in that locality in the past.

The initial price of one share was kshs 550 (O.I Jane Nyambura, Joakino Mukanda

31/12/16). However both informants reckoned that raising the money for a share was an uphill task. The receipts of Mukanda of payment show that he paid the total amount in instalments while Jane Nyambura claimed that she also paid in bits from her proceeds of hawking tea behind Jogoo house where she worked as a cleaner. The money raised through the sale of shares must have been used to pay the SFT loan as it was said to have been paid gradually. Indeed this must have been a reprieve to the poor widows of Mau Mau, the Mau Mau veterans, the poor Nyakinyua women and other poor people who benefitted from this land.

Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) explained that the company owned about 24 000 acres of land in Nairobi. However, some documents of the company specified that the main land in Nairobi which was located in Njiru sub-county was about 18 000 acres. It was possible that Kimani’s size of land was accurate as he was the company’s operation’s manager during the time of this study. In addition Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2016),

Daniel Kinyanjui (O.I /21 /2017) also confirmed that the company bought some more

land in the neighbourhood to add to the initial land. After buying the land it was subdivided among the shareholders. 300 acres was set aside for public utilities and six hundred acres was set aside for Nairobi City County sewage plant.

James Gichuki (O.I/31/12/2016) who worked for the white settler before the land was bought by the Embakasi Ranching observed that, the owner of the farm lived abroad while he left the farm to local managers in post independent period. The European settler used to grow French beans, sisal and also kept beef and dairy cattle. The produce from the dairy cattle was manufactured into milk and butter which was exported abroad. Joakino Mukanda and James Gichuki(O.I/31/12/2016) mentioned that the French beans were planted next to a river found near the Tusky’s Jirani

Supermarket along Kangundo road in Nairobi. The company’s records also indicated that the company’s economic activities were beef and dairy cattle rearing, pig breeding, sheep breeding, horticulture for export, sisal growing and quarrying activities.

After the company acquired the land from Brigadier Wigon, they continued with the previous economic activities such as growing of french beans and sisal farming as well as rearing of both beef and dairy cattle. This farming was stopped in 1990’s when all the land was sub-divided among shareholders. Gichuki (O.I 31/12/2016) further noted that, the Embakasi Ranching Company retained some of the white settler’s farm managers even after purchasing the land. Thus African workers continued to work under their supervision. This information was also affirmed by

Jane Nyambura (O.I 11/9/2016), Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016). At one time a part of this

land was leased to a certain Asian who continued with farming. However according to the company’s record the Asian was no longer farming by 2000. Due to the increased human population after shareholders settled in their parcels of land, livestock rearing was hampered as there was decreased grazing land. This prompted the company to sell the livestock and the farm machinery.

A document which was obtained from a shareholder dubbed, ‘facts about the company’ during the study also highlighted the economic activities of the company. It was mentioned that the ranch made profits from the proceeds of cattle rearing, pig breeding, sheep breeding, horticultural, sisal and quarrying. Out of the proceeds and the members contributions through buying of shares it was resolved in one AGM to invest the capital in buying extra land. The company therefore acquired land in the following areas, Kajiado/North Kaputei- 50 acres in Kitengela which was sub-divided into 324 plots of 0.05 hectares. Kajiado/Kisaju 85-100 acres subdivided into 170 plots of 0.2 hectares. Kajiado/Oldootikoshi/Kitengela 269 acres subdivided into 6 acres.

Kajiado/Oldootikoshi/Kitengela- 450 acres was subdivided into 720 plots of 0.2 hectares. There was one was in Kitengela with 300 acres and was sub-divided into

449 plots of 0.2 hectares. In Machakos the company acquired 1348 acres which were to be subdivided into plots of 5 acres. The document pointed that there was proposal to dispose the land outside Nairobi at higher price to benefit members. The land bought outside Nairobi was not mentioned by any of the company directors during the interviews. They only discussed on issues of the land in Nairobi County. It could have been sold as it had been suggested in the same document to make profits for the company.

The sale of livestock and other farm machinery by the company was an issue that made some shareholders complain as they argued that, it was not done properly. The items were said to have been disposed under unclear circumstances (Jane Nyambura

O.I 11/9/16). The company officials however, maintained that they were disposed as the company was making loses in the farming activities (Kimani O.I 20/9/2016,

Mwangi Thuita /26/5/2017). The disposal of the farm machinery must have marked the end of farming activities for the ranch. It could also have been hard to retain the grazing land after the land was sub-divided.

Daniel Kinyajui (O.I 27/4/2017) and Joseph Chira (25/5/2017) attested that there were two kinds of groups who own land in Embakasi Ranching Company, these were the original shareholders and non-shareholders. This difference was depicted in the payment receipts. Jane Nyambura (O.I/11/10/16) and Esther Githae (O.I 9/11/2016) referred to the original shareholders as “muturio” They mentioned that, the first shareholders joined the company in 1970s with the sole aim of acquisition of land.

One document written by a shareholder (Saka) that highlighted the facts of the company mentioned that the original shareholders were 6600.The original shareholders enjoyed privileges such as participation in election of company officials and sharing of the annual financial dividends. Despite these privileges many of these original shareholders claimed to have been given a raw deal as initially they were to get five acres which were later reduced to one acre and finally to quarter of an acre.

The original shareholders were also given a bonus of a quarter an acre for every share that one had. The informants mentioned that one share was equivalent to a quarter of an acre. The non-shareholders refer to those who bought land from the original shareholders and those who bought land from the company after the loan had been

paid. The non-share-holders seemed to be many from what was observed during the study.

Jane Nyambura (O.I/9/11/2016) explained that’ the first company offices in early

1980s were at the Standard Bank House along the Moi Avenue in Nairobi city.

According to the chairman’s report in 2000 AGM, the offices of the company’s surveyors were in Utalii house and the company’s advocate in Town house. The shareholders were expected to get the number of the share certificate from the surveyor and get the share certificate from the advocate in those offices. These offices were later moved to Ruai then to Ngong Road and later brought back to Ruai within the company’s land. The company attributed the several changes of location of offices to high rent, insecurity and enhancing accessibility to the shareholders.

Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/16) felt that the development of this company was based on quest for political and economic power. He maintained that, Muhuri Muchiri (the late former M.P for Embakasi) intended to use the land to achieve political patronage in the area. He vividly remembered to having been informed of the existence of the land by a primary school teacher in the Morrison primary school in Bahati constituency in Nairobi. However, to acquire a share of the land one had to be introduced by a campaigner of the M.P whom he could only recall by her second name as Wambui. They both lived in Umoja estate in Nairobi. He maintained that, one had to prove that he/she was a voter in Embakasi constituency. He further clarified that there was no tribal or regional discrimination in selling of shares of the company. The only requirement was to be a voter in Embakasi constituency.

In a document from one shareholder on ‘facts about the company’ there was a mention group of shareholders referred to as ‘Umoja group’. These shareholders must be those assisted to acquire land by Muhuri Muchiri’s campaigners so as to vote for him in subsequent general elections. The association of this company with politics was further affirmed by Samuel Mwangi Thuita (O.I/25/2017) who asserted that during the review of the constituency boundaries they were pushing to have a constituency curved out covering the Embakasi Ranching Company land only.

Although they were not successful in pushing for this constituency it was clear there was an attempt by company officials to control the area politically.

In his work, Taylor (2004) while examining the degree of security and property rights, acknowledged Embakasi Ranching as one of the means where one could buy shares and get land. Esther Githae (O.I 15/9/16) also acknowledged that the main achievement of Embakasi Ranching Company was the provision of land to the landless poor at an affordable price. Joakino Mukanda (O.I 30/12/16) also affirmed that the price of the share was friendly to the poor hence many people were able to buy land in the city at a cheaper price. He asserted that, his dream of owning a house in Nairobi was realised through this company. He claimed to have designed his house like the city council houses in Umoja one estate as he used to admire them. Alice

Wanjiru (O.I 11/10/17) also concurred that the purchase of land in this company was manageable even to people with low income. The informant claimed that even the widow of the late Dedan Kimathi also managed to acquire land in the company. This company thus enabled most the landless in Nairobi and its environs to acquire land at an affordable price.

Magdalene Muthoni (O.I 16/9/16) noted that, the price of two shares was Kshs 1 100 in 1980s. Joakino Mukanda’s receipts from Embakasi Ranching Company show that, members were allowed to pay for the share in two instalments. The price of a share changed from Kshs 6 500 (James Gichuki O.I/30/12/16) and later to Khs 17 000,

Khs 32 000, Khs 54 000 and finally to Khs 108 000 (O.I Elijah Mugendi 29/12/16).

Although the price was still friendly to the urban poor, there was no more available land for sale by 2013 (O.I Mwangi Thuita 26/5/2017). One of the area residents

Catherine Kimani (O.I/25/5/2017) noted that, by 2017, the market price of a quarter of an acre which was one share was over three million Kenya shillings. This portrayed how the land had appreciated in the area, probably due to development of infrastructure and social amenities in the area.

Jane Nyambura (O.I 11/10/2016) pointed out that, all the original shareholders were to get each five acres, but that was changed to one acre and later to a quarter of an acre as part of the land was sold to non-shareholders under mysterious circumstances.

The original shareholders viewed this as an act of corruption by the company officials,. This was affirmed by the company’s records which showed that, in 1983 the

Project International Consortium was hired to change the sub-division of land from five acres to one acre. The company’s records continued to show that, in 1990, the land was further subdivided from half an acre to quarter of an acre.

The ministry of land letter to Embakasi Ranching Company in December 1999 proved that, the company was allowed to sub-divide the land into smaller plots measuring quarter of an acre. Elijah Mugendi (O.I 29/12/2016) noted that, despite the reduction,

the original shareholders were to be given a bonus share of land for every share one alloted. The members were to get land from parcel no. 105 and the bonus from parcel no. 136. However, according to Saka’s document on ‘facts about the company’ and the chairman’s AGM report of the year 2000, the bonus was only granted after paying of a fee of Kshs 6 000. The payment of the fees was termed unfair as members had fully paid for their shares. Members felt that, their leaders were the main beneficiaries of the land and finances. This was a common practice in Neopatrimonialism where people had the rent-seeking behaviour of acquiring wealth for selfish reasons.

In one of the company’s AGM, Jane Nyambura (O.I/9/10/2016) acknowledged that they were given some dividends from the sale of livestock and vegetables. However, she asserted that the dividends were a meagre one shilling per share. She also pointed out that, the company directors sold all the company’s land in Kajiado and Machakos without the consent and knowledge of the shareholders. This shows that, the members of this company did not approve of some of the decisions implemented by the company’s board of directors. She also reckoned that, these were the last dividends they ever got. They were informed that, the company was making losses in the agricultural activities in the subsequent annual general meetings.

The solution of the landless acquiring land through land buying companies was not only in Nairobi but also in Murang’a. The Weekly Review (25th Jan 1985) acknowledged Kandara Investment as a land buying company formed to resolve the issue of landlessness in Murang’a. However, it was noted that the company was faced with a host of challenges. There were controversies surrounding the divisions of land, membership and profits accrued from developments of its farms. It seemed like land

buying companies were emerging in every locality in central Kenya. However, due to scarcity of land, there seemed to be multiple problems surrounding allocation of land to the shareholders. It was not clear where the Kandara Investment got their money to buy their land, but like many small land buying companies, they may have raised the money from their members. This portrayed how Kenyans continued buying land to overcome landlessness.

There were positive changes in the area where Embakasi Ranching Company sold land between 1979 and 2002. Evelyn Maina (O.I 18/10/16 and Joakino Mukanda (O.I

31/12/16) concurred that, the area owned by Embakasi Ranching company developed tremendously, especially, after the sub-division of the land. They acknowledged that, before the land was subdivided, the means of transport were very poor. There existed transport comprising of one bus belonging to Kenya Bus Services that dropped and picked children from Ruai Primary school in the morning and in the evening. This transport had been organized by the settlers so as to take care of children of their workers. Therefore, the early inhabitants of Ruai in 1990s relied on the two vehicles that plied between Nairobi town and Kangundo in Machakos County. The purchase of this land by this company can therefore be said to have led to development of roads in the area (See appendix x and xi).

Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/16) explained that before this land was acquired from the white settler, there was only one dispensary offering medical services to the workers in the farm and one primary school. When Embakasi Raching Company was sub-divided, the public dispensary near the sewage plant was expanded. The primary school that was located along Kangundo Road in Ruai shopping centre also expanded.

However, as Mary Wandundu (O.I 17/10/16) mentioned, there were numerous schools and health centres that developed in the area after the land was subdivided to the shareholders. This included schools like Muhuri Muchiri secondary school

(named after the first Chairman of the Embakasi Ranching Company). Others were

Ruai Girls Secondary School and Ruai Boys Secondary School, all of which were public schools established before 2013.

Samuel Mwangi Thuita (O.I 26/5/2017) noted that, there were 49 churches that were given land by the company. The company also provided land for a public stadium, social hall and health centres in the area that all lead to tremendous development.

However, according to the government officials, only three churches were given land as all the others bought land from shareholders. The national government officials, whose proper names could not be revealed, mentioned that, most of the land meant for development of public utilities was grabbed and sold to non-shareholders.

All the development in the area was attributed to appreciation of land in Embakasi

Ranching Company and the neighbourhood (See appendix ix,x, xi, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix and xx). Kariuki (2008) described a lady known as Mama John who bought a piece of land in Ruai which was located in Embakasi Ranching Company in 1990 and it all appeared like a joke to her husband and friends. The author further stated that, there were no public transport vehicles to Ruai by then. To get there, one needed to take a Tala bound public transport vehicle whose timing was scheduled. Therefore, the most common option was taking a vehicle to Kayole, and then one walked for about fifteen kilometres in the scorching sun to Ruai. However, in year 2003, Mama

John was happy to see her investment and she had become a successful business

woman in Ruai. A letter from the Ministry of Transport and Communication to town clerk (KNA/RN/1/130) showed that, there was a problem of public transport in many parts of Nairobi. The population of Ruai which was the base of Embakasi Ranching

Company, increased and the economy equally grew significantly by 2002.

3.5 Conclusion

This chapter analyzed the expansion of Nairobi and development of Embakasi

Ranching Company during the reign of the second president of Kenya Daniel arap

Moi. The chapter demonstrated how the government failed to implement land policies, provide land and houses in Nairobi despite formulation of different policies and plans. Many people were living as squatters or in congested rental houses and hence the emergence of the company in this study was a reprieve to them. It was pointed that Embaksi Ranching Company was formed to provide land to the landless windows of Mau Mau veterans, Mau Mau veterans, urban poor, public servants with no land and the Nyakinyua women group. Indeed one of the major achievements of this company was the provision of land at an affordable rate to the urban poor. The change of price of share was indicated as well as the initial economic activities of company. The socio-economic developments that occurred in the area due to the presence of the company were identified. The rise of political conflicts among notable politicians over control of the area was highlighted. It has been demonstrated that

Neopatrimonialism was greatly pursued in Embakasi Ranching Company. The founders of this company were political leaders who used the company to gain financially and politically. Over the span of time Embakasi Ranching Company experienced several challenges. These drawbacks will be discussed in the next chapter.

4.0. CHAPTER FOUR

CHALLENGES OF EMBAKASI RANCHING COMPANY FROM 2003 TO

2013

4.1 Introduction

Chapter three discussed on how the expansion of Nairobi led to development of the

Embakasi Ranching Company. The factors that led to development of the company and achievements were highlighted. This chapter looked at the third objective of this study. This chapter therefore examines the challenges encountered by Embakasi

Ranching Company between 2003 and 2013. The period was associated with the administration of the third president of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki. The chapter was guided by Neopatrimonialism theory which was adopted by Africans in post-independence era.

4.2 Challenges faced by Embakasi Ranching Company from 2003 to 2013

The first challenge that Embakasi Ranching Company encountered involved their first chairperson. In the Daily Nation (9th June, 2006) it was noted that, the mention of

Muhuri Muchiri reminded Kenyans of a certain generation, a little Ugandan border town called Chepkube and the great coffee smuggling of the 1970s. It was further stated that, the MP and his friend Jesse Mwangi Gachago were the most high profile

Kenyans arrested, charged and jailed for stealing coffee in transit to Mombasa from

Malaba on Kenya-Uganda border. According to Wafula in Feyissals (2015) work, there were three classifications of participants of smugglers at Kenya-Uganda border.

These were the small timers, commission workers and the rich bulk traders. The bulk traders involved rich merchants and companies in Kenya and Uganda. Muhuri

Muchiri and his friend Gachago definitely belonged to the bulk traders’ category. The two were jailed and hence the operations of Embakasi Ranching Company were affected as Muhuri Muchiri was the chairman of the company by then. Joakino

Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2017) asserted that many shareholders felt that, the involvement of the chairperson in the smuggling of coffee was an embarrassment to the Embakasi

Ranching Company fraternity. He noted that the imprisonment of the MP caused delays of the company’s operations as he was considered the greatest pillar of the company then. The members of Embakasi Ranching Company also felt that, he had betrayed the very government that facilitated them in acquiring their land. Corruption among the citizens was a common feature where Neopatrimonialism was adopted in post-independence Africa. This explained the reasons for the involvement of these

MPs in the coffee smuggling.

In the Sunday Standard ( 29th October 2006), Daily nation (9th June 2006), Njenga

Karume who was also a director of Embakasi Ranching by then, was said to have helped Muhuri Muchiri secure his freedom. He was also supportive to his family when in jail. This was also affirmed by Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2017). Muhuri and his counterpart Gachago were released after imprisonment for two years and hence they did not serve for the five years that had been stipulated by the court. On being released, Muhuri Muchiri recaptured his parliamentary seat and retained it in the subsequent general elections. This shows that despite the jail term he was able to convince the electorates to vote for him again. Perhaps the release from prison before five years proved his innocence and he appeared to have been jailed unlawfully to the

electorates. However, the provision of affordable land to the constituents must have played a major role in his election. Indeed, on his death, Muhuri Muchiri’s colleagues referred to him as being a kind and honest politician (Daily Nation 9th June 2006).

The coffee scandal and the imprisonment did not affect his position in the company as the company records showed that he was a director of the company up to his death

(Chairman’s AGM reports). The involvement of the leader of Embakasi Raching

Company with smuggling of coffee and his subsequent release through the influence of the then powerful MP for Kiambaa, Njenga Karume, proved that,

Neopatrimonialism was intertwined with corruption.

Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) pointed out that, there was interference of the running of the company by the government. He claimed that, this was instigated by area member of parliament by then who was the late David Mwenje. The informant asserted that, the government sent its officials who camped at the company offices for days to investigate the activities of the company. He continued to explain that, since the company was not found to have committed anything wrong the officers left the company after some days. This incidence was said to have widened the rift between

David Mwenje and Muhuri Muchiri (Joakino Mukanda O.I 31/12/17). Probably,

Mwenje was worried that, the population awarded land by the company would vote for Muhuri Muchiri who was his rival in Embakasi constituency seat. The competition between Muhuri Muchiri and David Mwenje was also another aspect on

Neopatrimonialism where both wanted to get state power that would enable them control economic resources and relationship with the citizens.

The need for creating political patronage in Embakasi constituency created tension in this company. Land tensions were exacerbated by the differences between Muhuri

Muchiri and David Mwenje. All elections in Kenya with exclusion of 2002 since introduction of multi-partyism were marred by land conflicts, violence and population displacement (Veit, 2010). The political manipulation of land would help the political leaders win the general election. Muhuri Muchiri could use Embakasi Ranching to reward his political supporters. David Mwenje on the other hand came up with a criminal gang known as Jeshi la Embakasi to terrorise Muhuri Muchiri’s supporters during campaigns. Competition for control of resources and political power was highly associated with Neopatrimonialism.

As Kojo (2008) noted, leaders in the land buying companies who found their way into national political positions used their new power to weaken the support of their rivals or even undermine the organization of the land buying companies, if they did not further their interests. David Njeru(O.I 17/5/2017), affirmed that, there existed bitter rivalry between late Muhuri Muchiri and late David Mwenje who ousted the former from Embakasi parliamentary seat. The cold relations continued between the

Embakasi Ranching Company and Ferdinand Waititu who also became Embakasi

Member of Parliament later. Waititu and Mwenje must have realised that it would be hard to convince voters who had acquired land with the help of another politician to vote for them. They must also have been frustrated as they could not get into leadership position of a company they had not founded.

To ensure his election as a member of parliament, the late David Mwenje decided also to give grabbed land to his supporters. However, due to poverty and the small size of

the plots, his supporters could only build slums. In the Daily Nation (15th Feb 2017), it was noted that Mwenje had admitted to own 500 shacks in Embakasi that charged rent of Kshs 200. In the same newspaper, the chairman of the town planning chapter of Architectural Association of Kenya said that politicians were partly responsible for proliferation of slums in Nairobi. He emphasized that, there were slums that were exclusive vote zones for certain politicians hence attempts to demolish them faced stiff resistance. The slums acted as bases of crime since the occupants were only housed but were not given means of earning a living. In the case of David Mwenje’s slums, there was rise of “Jeshi la Embakasi ” gangster that the MP used during his election campaigns to intimidate his opponents. All this was done to counter the efforts of Embakasi Ranching Company becoming a voting basket for Muhuri

Muchiri. The efforts of David Mwenje bore fruits as he was able to clinch the

Embakasi parliamentary seat from 1988 to 1991 and 1997 to 2006. This proved that, provision of plots of land to the electorates could enable politicians develop political patronage in their constituencies. The competition by these politicians to get political power was an aspect of Neopatrimonialim in post independent Kenya.

The failure to hold the Annual General meeting regularly was not taken well by the shareholders. In a document referred to as ‘the facts about the company’ written by one shareholder to others during one AGM (Saka), it was claimed that since the inception of the company to year 2000, there were only six AGMs. Since the company was formed in 1975 and the meeting were to be held annually, the company had therefore skipped nineteen AGMs. This denied the company the opportunity to deliberate on the company affairs freely and elect or re-elect directors. In an AGM, all directors were expected to step down every year on rotation basis and seek re-election

if they wished. It was further mentioned by shareholders that, most AGMs were characterized by presence of heavy anti-riot police whose presence normally seemed to intimidate shareholders (O.I Magdalene Muthoni 11/9/2016, Esther Githae

25/5/1017). This denied members a chance to exercise their democratic rights and also denied the company new ideas.

The document, ‘facts about the company’ pointed out that, failure to hold AGMs made five directors to serve for a very long period. The five directors were said to be loyal to the chairman as they did not object or criticise him. They were not objective in decision making and were also said to be sycophants of the chairman. In return, the chairman used the company land to reward them handsomely. They were allowed to buy land at a lower price than the other shareholders (Magdaline Muthoni O.I

11/9/16, John Muchiri O.I 9/10/16). The document further affirmed that, the directors bought plots at kshs 2,000 in Ruai and sold them between kshs 200,000 to 400,000.

The company resources were therefore used by leaders to accumulate wealth. This amounted to self-seeking and corruption which were traits of Neopatrimonialism.

Tostensen (2001) noted that, legitimacy, successes and effectiveness of leaders of land buying companies can only be achieved through regular annual general meetings before eliciting community action. In such meetings, members of Embakasi Ranching

Company could have deliberated on the issues affecting the company and members in general. This could have prevented scenarios where the company leadership was pitted against the shareholders leading to subsequent strained working relationship and slow delivery of services to the members.

Leadership wrangles were normally termed as the cause for the delay of annual general meetings. This view was held by the shareholders (O.I Jane Nyambura

9/11/2016, Jane Kimenye 27/10/16 Magadaline Muthoni 11/9/16) who alleged that, there were normally two opposing camps during the company’s elections. One group was normally headed by the incumbent chairperson and another by those opposed to his leadership. According to citizen television news on (23rd March, 2011 (youtube)), there was bitter rivalry between the company’s chairman Samuel Mwangi Thuita and the former Nairobi Mayor Dick Waweru. The annual general meeting of 2011 witnessed heavy presence of police. The registrar of societies was also present to ensure that, the meeting took place. Dick Waweru and his faction disputed on the method of voting as he wanted to be elected. He also claimed that, the company did not have the mother title, yet there were claims that they were processing titles for members. However, he was overpowered by the numbers of Mwangi Thuita’s group and thus retreated. These conflicts caused tension and suspicion among shareholders of the two opposing groups. However, Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) down played the existence of different factions saying it was healthy for people to hold divergent opinions. The existence of differences among leaders could have caused slow achievement of the company’s objectives.

The competition for leadership to control the resources was an aspect of

Neopatrimonialism. The leadership wrangles between Samuel Mwangi Thuita and

Dick Waweru emanated from political gains associated with the chairperson’s seat.

Dick Waweru was a former mayor of Nairobi and was interested in Embakasi constituency seat (O.I 11/9/16 Magdalene Muthoni). He must have aimed at getting a leadership post in Embakasi Ranching Company so as get support of the members

during the general election. Although Samuel Mwangi Thuita never vied for

Embakasi parliamentary seat after the demise of Muhuri Muchiri, he was able to become a senior elder of the Agikuyu council of elders. Political leaders in post independent Kenya assisted the poor to access land and expected them to reciprocate by supporting them gain political positions as Neopatrimonialism was associated with favours.

Double allocations of plots of land affected negatively many shareholders of the company. Cecilia Wanjiru O.I 26/10/17, Esther Kimani O.I/25/5/2017) mentioned that, this was a major hurdle in Embakasi Ranching. This view was also shared by

Esther Githae (O.I 21/4/17) and Magdalene Muthoni (O.I 22/4/2017). Daniel

Kinyanjui(O.I 21/4/2017) argued that, in most cases, the double allocation occurred when the land of a shareholder was sold to non-suspecting citizen by some unscrupulous company officials. The informants mentioned that, this normally caused conflicts among the shareholders. They further explained that, at times, some shareholders resorted to violence, litigation in law courts while at times the matter was handled by the company’s board of directors.

In the Daily Nation (10th July 2014), the existence of double allocation was evident with the advert warning by the company’s chairman. In this paper, the chairman

(Samuel Mwangi Thuita) reinstated that, all shareholders should not put up a house before getting clearance from the office so as to ensure that one did not erect a house on a road reserve or on somebody else’s plot. The chairman pointed out that, the company wished to eliminate double allocation of the plots of land completely. In that

notice, anybody wishing to construct a house was advised to seek company officials’ assistance to locate his/her plot.

In another notice in the Daily nation (6th April, 2016), the chairman, Samuel Mwangi

Thuita affirmed that, where double allocation of land had occurred, the company believed in the policy of first come first served. Therefore, whoever was allocated the plot of land first was considered the rightful owner of the plot. This portrayed that, a number of unsuspecting shareholders who had never developed their plots once allocated were likely to have lost their money as it may not be clear how many people were allocated the same plot of land. The fact that cases of double allocation were there in year 2014 and 2016 meant that, such cases have always existed in this company. The grabbing and selling of individuals parcels of land must have been due to greed for money. This amounted to corruption and rent-seeking behaviour.

Corruption and rent-seeking are behaviours that are well embedded in

Neopatrimonialim.

There was consensus among many shareholders (O.I 19/4/2017Ann Gakii, Joseph

Ciira, 12/5/17, Cyrus Wanga 11/5/2017) that, the existence of two types of land owners in this company was the root cause of protracted rifts among the members.

There were the original shareholders and non-shares holders. Although the shareholders were the founders of this company, many failed to develop their land forcing the company to re-sell and reallocate the land to non-shareholders who wanted to settle down. However, after the development of infrastructure and other public amenities, the original shareholders resurfaced to demand for their rightful share which was normally a tug of war between the duos. In many instances in the past, the

company directors would give a new parcel of land in undeveloped areas to the non- shareholder.

Kimani (O.I 20/9/16) explained that, where conflicts of ownership arose between a shareholder and a non-shareholder, the rights of the original shareholders were considered paramount and always prevailed. It should be noted that, this normally did not augur well to the non-shareholders as the company officials were blamed for failure of proper documentation and management. Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) explained that, all complaints by shareholders were solved by company’s board of directors. He continued to expound that, the company was headed by a chairperson elected from the

13 elected and four nominated directors. There was a lot of dissatisfaction among the shareholders with the way the company board of directors resolved conflicts (O.I

Njuguna Ngumba 12/4/ 2017, Nyokabi Watai O.I 9/10/2016, Peter Kamau O.I

13/5/2017, Nancy Wambui O.I 12/4/2017). Therefore, this was what made them to seek for help from various government offices such as the local Assistant chief, local chief and local police. Indeed, some even submitted their complaints to law courts for mitigation.

Magdalene Muthoni (O.I 11/9/16), Peris Gitau (O.I/24/2017) explained that, that were many conflicts between shareholders over allocation of same plot of land. Some of the shareholders conflicts were resolved in the courts against the company’s will. This was further confirmed by the chairperson’s (Samuel Mwangi Thuita) notices variously in the newspapers (Daily nation 6th April 2016, Daily nation10th July, 2014).

In one of the notices, the chairperson pleaded with those with court cases to go to the company to have their papers rechecked. Definitely this may be due to the fact that

court cases were draining financially and they tended to take long thus hampering some activities in the company offices. For instance on November 2013 case 516 of

2012 in High Court the defendant and the plaintiffs were not able to prove their cases due to lack of a title deed to proof the rightful owner of a disputed parcel of land

(Kenya law 2013). This forced the duo to revert to the company’s mechanism of resolving disputes via a board of directors. Resolving of cases among the shareholders in law courts depicted lack of confidence in the company’s board of directors which was supposed to solve all cases.

John Muchiri (O.I 9/10/16) observed that, lack of proper documentation by the company especially on the maps showing the sub-divisions caused a lot of conflicts among shareholders. He alluded that some shareholders are allocated land on paper but not on the ground map. He further stated that some non-shareholders had not been granted the right to apply for title deeds of their parcels of land by the time of this study. The company told them that the map showing the sub-division of their parcels of land was not ready.

Evelyn Maina (O.I 8/10/16) noted that, the process of buying a piece of land in the company was elaborate and tedious. Upon payment for the land, a shareholder had to pay a fee referred to as site visit fees. The next step was being taken to the site of the plot by the company’s surveyor, who in turn validated the documents by signing at the back of the share certificate. Since many shareholders were not able to raise the site visit fees they continued holding unverified documents. This was a very paramount step as noted in Daily Nation (10th July 2014) Embakasi Ranching

Company advert. In this newspaper, the chairman of the company requested those

whose certificate had not been signed at the back by the surveyors and himself to take them to the office for verification. The shareholders who were willing to sell their land were reminded to transfer their land in company offices and not in lawyers’ offices. However if someone insisted on using a lawyer, they were advised to sign the documents in company’s offices. Indeed the failure to follow the due process of buying property could have been the root cause of constant conflicts between shareholders fighting over one piece of land in this company.

According to Wyclief Njoroge (O.I 27/11/16) lack of integrity in the affairs of the company tainted the image of the company negatively. This was further affirmed by

Mwangi Thuita (O.I 25/8/2016) the chairperson of the company at the time of this study. In his address to the shareholders and company workers outside the company offices, he complained bitterly on corruption among the workers. He explained that one of the company worker’s had been selling land to unsuspecting shareholders using fake receipts. He explained that the said worker had made counterfeit receipts and a fake company seal. The company’s title deed manager, Charles Ndoria was told to explain to shareholders the difference between the genuine and fake share certificate. It was further stated that the worker was selling a quarter acre at Kshs 1.5 million as opposed to Kshs 108,000 recommended by the company. This kind of corruption affected the company negatively especially in situation where the aggrieved parties used litigation in solving the problem.

The Daily Nation (10th July 2014) mentioned that the company land surveyors were also associated with integrity issues. This mainly happened when one was sacked by the company and continued to work illegally and allocated land to unsuspecting

shareholders. In that Daily Nation, the chairman advised the shareholders seeking services from surveyors to ensure that their plots were pointed out to them on ground by the authorized surveyors only, and not by bogus surveyors or by surveyors whose services were terminated by the company. This pointed that, some shareholders at times paid the site fee to surveyors whose work was not recognized by the company leading to loss of their money.

Charles Thuku (O.I 20/12/2016) noted that the company had taken long to provide title deeds to their members. He alluded that provision of titles would eradicate all the problems related to corruption. For a company that was formed in 1975, it was expected to have completed subdividing the land and issued the title deeds. There was a feeling among the shareholders that the delay in issuance of title deeds was a ploy by the company directors to get money from those selling their land as they had to pay the transfer fees. During this study, the fees paid to transfer ownership of one plot from a shareholder to another was Khs 50, 000 (O.I Hannah Nduta 31/12/16). In addition, directors were said to have retired in either public or private sector and hence the company acted as their employer and also a source of income. This was a rent-seeking behaviour that emanated from Neopatrimonialim where individuals continue to accumulate wealth at the expense of the others.

The title manager of the company, Charles Ndoria (O.I 26/11/2016) explained that, the process of giving title deeds had been slowed down by occasional court orders. He mentioned that on many occasions the company had attempted to process title deeds for the shareholders but a group opposed to the process could obtain court orders to halt the process. This had made it hard for the company to accomplish its mandate of

facilitating title deed processing since the rule of law must be followed. Cecilia

Wanjiru (O.I 26/10/17,Jane Kimenye (O.I 27/10/16) explained that the reason why the court orders could halt the processing of titles was due to the list of names given by the company to the ministry of land. The list was said to have included the names non-shareholders while some of the original shareholders were missing. This was another aspect of corruption among some leaders of the company who seemed to have embraced Neopatrimonialim tendencies in totality.

Magdalene Muthoni (O.I 11/9/16) noted that even when there was a case between two shareholders taken to court, the company must verify the owner of the plot of land as the court did not have means of ascertaining the rightful owner. The informant claimed that at times the company officials were bribed to testify falsehood. This at times made those who did not bribe to lose their property. This informant further claimed that at one time her plot of land was grabbed and sold to another person.

When she won the case the person who had built on her land refused to move out.

This prompted her to use violence method. She obtained a court order that allowed her to demolish the house that had been constructed on her land.

The functioning of this company was hampered by death of directors and other workers over the years. According to Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) some key people who lost their lives over the years were Kariuki Mwaganu, Muhuri Muchiri, Jacho and

Esther Wanjiku. The death of such individuals may have affected the smooth running of the company before suitable replacements were got. All the first officials of the company with exceptional of one (Samuel Mwangi Thuita) were deceased when the research was carried out. Although Mwangi Thuita was the chairman, his memory

seemed to be fading as he kept asking other directors to remind him several issues during the interview.

Kimani (O.I 10/2016) explained that the demand for land in Embakasi Ranching

Company had increased over the years. He argued that this could be a cause of decline of integrity among some rogue company officials. The rise of population and improved infrastructure in the area had made many people to struggle to acquire land.

Many non-shareholders were willing to bribe to get the land. Cotula, (2006) noted that pressure on land was set to increase over future decades, given the impacts of continued population growth, urbanization and globalization of markets. The author further stated that as the land became scarcer and more valuable, those with weak rights to this resource tended to lose out. In the case of land, particular groups tended to be more vulnerable to dispossession including the poor, those in peri-urban areas, indigenous people, women, and those relying on common property resources in areas of conflict. This was the case among the poor land owners in Embakasi ranching company who were frequently displaced. Indeed the government officials felt there was need to formulate a policy to enable fast acquisition of title deeds to protect the vulnerable. If acquisition of title could have been realised perhaps members could have used their land as collateral and even sell without instead of losing their investment.

Some shareholders of Embakasi Ranching felt that the company had failed them and made their future uncertain. In the Standard (18th June 2009) a lady named Esther wondered what the future held for her. She claimed to have bought shares in the company as her retirement investment but she was never allocated land. The agitated

100

shareholder felt that the government had failed to help them to get their natural justice. The shareholder alluded that lack of justice in the company would generate into blood warfare. The fear of losing lifetime financial saving was equated to being murdered. The shareholder must have represented the position of many who had suffered a similar fate in this company. The shareholders argued that that the reason for grabbing of their land by the company was fuelled by the appreciation of value of land under Embakasi Ranching Company. According to James Gichuki (O.I

31/12/2016), Joakino Mukanda (O.I 31/12/2016), a quarter of an acre that was bought at kshs 550 could be sold for khs 3, 000,000 by 2016. The greed for wealth accumulation which was a characteristic of Neopatrimonialism was behind the grabbing of the poor shareholders land by fellow shareholders or some officials of the company. Indeed Neopatrimonialism was characterised by a “cut throat struggle” by the poor and the rich in this company.

President Kibaki’s era represented a historical moment when Kenya’s system of land relations which had been at the root of violent conflict throughout colonial and post- independence history was to be addressed. This was as a result of the approval of the

National land policy and embedding of the land policy in 2010 Constitution of Kenya.

Kieyah (2010) pointed that section 40 of the constitution of Kenya 2010 did not confer constitutional protection to any property that had been acquired unlawfully.

The author further observed that the legal consequence of this provision was that illegally acquired public or private land was not constitutionally protected and the government may repossess all illegally allocated public land without compensation.

The author also pointed out that, constitution was silent on cases where the illegally allocated public land had been transferred to third party who had no knowledge of

101

illegality at the time of transfer. This meant that despite the country adopting the constitution of Kenya 2010, Mwai Kibaki’s government could not help in resolving cases of individuals who had lost their land in land buying companies. Indeed

Embakasi Rancing Company did not seem to have been affected by any of the land policies formulated during Kibaki’s period as they had not been implemented by

2013.

President Mwai Kibaki kept land grabbers at bay when in office and thus discouraged his backers from using land as a political tool. Kenyans citizens expected the president to clear the land problems left by his predecessors (Sunday Nation 25th

January 2015). However since some of his cabinet members were mentioned in the

Ndung’u report, it became hard for him to implement its recommendations. Indeed,

Kariuki (2008) affirmed that land as a resource of political patronage was used to reward and punish those who were perceived as outsiders in the evolving political system that personified the ideals of its leaders. He continued to note that land also gained a particular premium across the three presidential epochs: Kenyatta (1963-

1978), Moi (1978-2002) and Kibaki (2003-2007). By attempting to clean the land mess through the Ndungu (2004) report, Kibaki aimed at making his administration popular politically so as to be re-elected in 2007.Hence the failure of Kibaki’s government to implement land reforms contributed immeasurably to the land conflicts in Embakasi Ranching Company.

Land buying companies, land buying co-operative societies and land buying partnerships were formed by citizens soon after independence and thereafter with the principal aim of acquiring farms for investment and settlement. However it was noted

102

that after the acquisition of farms, major problems soon developed. Some of these were perpetual wrangles between directors and members, wrangles among directors and wrangles among members. There was also non-compliance with statutory provisions of the laws governing their operations like lack of accounts, failure to hold annual general meetings and failure to make annual returns. The mismanagement by directors and management committees, failure to prepare members registers and management committees were also termed as major challenges affecting land buying companies. The report pointed out that, these companies were facing protracted litigations (Ndungu 2004). It was therefore not surprising that the government directed all these groups to subdivide the farms and liquidate themselves; however some failed to do so like the company in this study. Perhaps this explained the existence of myriads of problems in Embakasi Ranching Company as depicted in this chapter. Kibaki’s government therefore failed to come out strongly in making the land buying companies to issue title deeds.

In the Ndung’u’s report (2004) it was noted that in the mid-1980s the government directed all land buying companies, land buying co-operative societies and land buying partnerships to subdivide farms and liquidate themselves. However some did not subdivide their farms and failed to give title deeds to all their members. If these companies had liquidated, the challenges discussed in Embakasi Ranching could have been solved. According to Embakasi Ranching Company’s unpublished sources, a letter from one share holder showed anomalies in the company where parts of the company’s land had not been fully paid for. However, Mwangi Thuita

(O.I/26/5/2017) contended that, the company paid for their land. The explanation by

103

Mwangi pointed that, there was no evidence of anybody demanding for the payment from the Embakasi Ranching and hence it was legally acquired.

Among the land policies formulated during president Kibaki’s administration were;

2012 Land Act and Land Commission 2012 (Ambreena(2012). The land Act of 2012 proposed for three types of land holdings, which were private, community and public.

Embakasi Ranching Company belonged to the private category. This act proposed on the minimum and the maximum land one could own. However this act was not implemented within the period of this study. The Land Commission was formed in

2012 just one year before the end of Mwai Kibaki era. One of the functions of the

National Land Commission was to advise the national government on a comprehensive programme for registration for title deeds throughout Kenya (G.O.K

2010). The provision of title deeds to members of Embakasi Raching had not been realised by 2013. Daniel Kinyanjui (O.I 21/4/20170, Kimani (O.I 20/9/2016) explained that, the company was not affected by land policies made during Mwai

Kibaki. Indeed the company’s chairman Mwangi Thuita did not seem to know of any land policies that were made in Kenya from 2003 to 2013. Esther Githae (O.I/9

/10/2016) noted that despite the company sub dividing the land, it failed to fast track issuance of title deeds and hence it failed to liquidate. In a nutshell all the land policies formulated during Kibaki’s administration were not implemented by 2013 the year that marked end of this study.

Some of the challenges experienced in Embakasi Ranching Company were also observed in other land buying companies. The Weekly Review (4th Jan 1984) mentioned of existence of a land buying company referred to as Matetu Farmers

104

Company and Nyakinyua Co-operative Society. It was noted that, the companies faced challenges. Among them was an accusation against Peter Kuguru. He was accused of stealing Kshs 2.6 million and Kshs 786,836 from the two companies respectively. Indeed it seemed that the poor peasant who pooled their resources to acquire land could barely benefit from it before suffering in the hands of the emerging corrupt African leaders. Although this challenge had been experienced before 2003, it was worth comparing with Embakasi Ranching Company challenges as they were all formed after independence with the aim of helping Africans to acquire land. This was a clear indication that corruption common practice in land buying companies of post- independence Kenya.

4.3 Conclusion

This chapter analyzed the challenges experienced by Embakasi Ranching Company from 2003 to 2013. The drawbacks in Embakasi Ranching can be divided into internal and external. The internal challenges included the following; jailing of the first chairman Muhuri Muchiri in 1970s, failure to hold AGMs, leadership wrangles, double allocations of plots, existence of two types of shareholders (original shareholders and non-shareholders), poor methods of resolving conflicts, lack of proper methods of documentation, very tedious methods of land transfer, lack of integrity among some company workers and some shareholders, slow process of issuance of title deeds, death of directors and prominent workers as well as grabbing of the poor shareholders’ land by the rich. The external challenges were; high demand for land in Nairobi which made the rich defraud the weak and the venerable their land and failure by government to implement land reforms. Neopatrimonialism paradigm was used to demonstrate how land was used in Embakasi Ranching Company by

105

individuals to enrich them and also develop political patronage over those helped to acquire land. This chapter covered the last objective of this study. The summary of the research findings, recommendations and conclusion will be discussed in the next chapter.

106

5.00: CHAPTER FIVE:

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discussed the summary of the research findings, conclusion from research findings and recommendations or policies that can be adopted in management of land buying companies in Kenya. It also highlighted other areas that need to be studied. This study focused on the history of the Embakasi Ranching

Company in Nairobi County, from 1963 to 2013. Although the period of study was from 1963, there was brief background of the colonial land policies highlighted in chapter two.

5.2 Summary

The first objective of this study was discussed in chapter two. It involved the examining of the factors that led to the formation of land buying companies from

1963 to 1978. It was observed that, the colonial land policies made Africans poor and landless. Several factors that led to formation of land buying companies were realized.

The poor and landless Kenyans pooled their resources and formed the land buying companies. Secondly, Jomo Kenyatta government encouraged the landless to form land buying companies after the attainment of independence. In addition, the government provided the loans for buying the land. Thirdly, some African communities felt the need to recover the land they had before colonialism. The fourth factor that led to rise of these companies was mobilization of the poor and landless by political leaders. The political leaders aimed at making wealth and creating a voting bloc for themselves.

107

The second objective of the study was examined in chapter three. This was on the expansion of Nairobi and development of Embakasi Ranching Company from 1979 to

2002. It was observed that the migration of the Africans to Nairobi was caused by landlessness in rural areas. The need for employment also encouraged the rural- urban migration. The increased population in Nairobi caused constraints in the housing sector. It was therefore against this background that political leaders seized the opportunity to organize the landless Africans into forming Embakasi Ranching

Company in Nairobi. This study unearthed that, Embakasi Ranching was formed by the then member of parliament of Embakasi Constituency the late Godfrey Muhuri

Muchiri. The company targeted to recruit the landless and the poor that included the following; widows of Mau Mau veterans, Mau Mau veterans, Nyakinyua women group that used to entertain guests for the late Jomo Kenyatta and landless civil servants. The leaders of the company were able to gain wealth by selling land. The company leaders were able to increase their political popularity in the region.

Embakasi Ranching Company also led to economic and social development in the area. The main ones included provision of land to the landless poor at low cost, provision of land to build administrative centers, schools, hospitals, market, recreation facilities, transport and communication. These developments enabled the leaders of the company to gain political mileage as characterized in Neopatrimonialim.

Chapter four focused on the third objective of this study. This objective investigated the challenges of Embakasi Ranching Company from 2003 to 2013. The challenges included; jailing of the first chairman, failure to hold AGMs, poor methods of resolving conflicts, tedious methods of land transfer, poor documentation of company records, death of directors and company workers, double allocation of plots of land,

108

slow process of issuing title deeds and frequent litigation in courts of law. The greatest challenge however was lack of integrity. Neopatrimonialism was highly characterized by corruption as individual’s amassed wealth at the expense of the others. This was also common in Embakasi Ranching Company between 2003 and

2013. It was observed that the challenges normally tainted the image of the company and made many shareholders to have a negative attitude towards the company.

5.3 Conclusion

This study was able to show that, land buying companies were used by political leaders for political patronage and accumulation of wealth. The political leaders rewarded their supporters with land in order to secure their loyalty. This was observed throughout the administration of the first three presidents of Kenya.

The Neopatrimonialism theory adopted in this study portrayed how African leaders advanced their political and financial agenda using land. According to the findings in this study, it was evident that, politics was intertwined with the land buying companies. The leaders of the Embakasi Land Buying Company were able to accumulate wealth and gain political mileage by enabling their supporters to get land.

5.4 Recommendations

The government needs to come out strongly and streamline the running of land buying companies in Kenya. Perhaps, this would halt the suffering of many ordinary

Kenyans in the hands of land buying companies’ leaders. Although the land buying companies are private enterprises, they need to be monitored closely to ensure that the leaders do not misuse their positions at the expense of the shareholders. There is need to develop policies that will ensure transparency and accountability in the companies.

109

To end the challenges in land buying companies, the government should come up with clear policies to guide them.

The County and National Government should help to fast track processing of all the required documents in the issuance of title deeds. The government should also develop a policy that would require all the land companies to process their members’ title deeds within a stipulated period of time. There was a feeling among the shareholders that, the delay in the issuance of title deeds created a fertile ground for corruption. To avert problems in land companies in future, the government should therefore come up with strict rules and penalties for companies that are corrupt and fails to follow the rule of law. This can reduce conflicts, loss of lives, property and bring an end to the corrupt cartels in land buying companies. It would also help in changing the negative perception of land buying companies. Information gathered in this study would help the general citizens and the government to correct mistakes and failures of land companies. The achievements of the Embakasi Land Buying

Company can be advanced by future land buying companies.

More information of this company from 2014 could also be collected from the elderly shareholders before it is too late. Indeed, two informants of the current study passed on a few months after the interview. More comprehensive research can be done on other land buying companies like Kihiu Mwiri, Ngwataniro,Mbo I Kamiti, Kamwaura

Farm in Molo and Kiambaa Farmers in Eldoret which were contemporaries of

Embakasi Ranching Company. There is also need to interrogate the implementation of the constitution of Kenya 2010 from 2014 and Uhuru Kenyatta’s land policies and their impact on land buying companies.

110

REFERENCES Primary sources

List of informants

1. Chira Joseph, 65 years, interviewed on 14th May 2017

2. Gichuki James, 50 years, interviewed in Ruai estate in November 2013

3. Gakii Jane, 49 years, interviewed in April 19th 2017

4. Gitau Peris,interviewed in Utawala in May 2017

5. Hiuhu Hannah 45 years, interviewed in Utawala in 12th May 2016

6. Kamau Peter 50 years, interviewed in Ruai in May 2017

7. Kimani Catherine, 36 years interviewed in Ruai May

8. Kimani Esther, 65 years, interviewed in Utawala in October 2016

9. Kimani 60 years, interviewed in October in company premises September 2016

10. Kimenye Jane 42 years, interviewed in Ruai on October 2016

11. Kinyanjui Daniel 58 years interviewed on April 21 2017 at Kangundo road

12. Muchiri John 50 years, interviewed in Ruai in October 2016

13. Mugendi Elijah 40 years, interviewed in Capital hill October 2016

14. Mukanda Joakino 80 years, interviewed near Ruai shopping centre in Nov

2016

15. Muthoni Magdalene 70 years, interviewed in Uhuru market in September

2016.

16. Ndoria Charles, 60 years, interviewed in company offices in November 2016

17. Nduta Giteta Hannah 60 years, interviewed in Njiru in November 2016

18. Njeru David 65 years interviewed in Dandora in April 2017

19. Njoroge Wiclief interviewed in Ruai in November 2016

111

20. Ngumba Njuguna 65 years, interviewed in Ruai in April 2017

22. Nyambura Jane 78 years, interviewed in Maringo estate in October 2016

22.Mwangi Thuita 80 years, interviewed in the company offices in May 2017

23. Thuku Charles 47 years, interviewed in Utawala in December 2016

24. Maina Evelyn 43 years, interviewed in Ruai in October 2016

25 Wandundu Mary, 45 years interviewed in Ruai October 2016

26. Wambui Nancy 60 years, interviewed in Umoja in.

27. Wanga Cyrus, 48 years interviewed on 11th May 2017 outside the Embakasi

28. Wanjiku Githae Esther, 73 years, interviewed in Uhuru Market in September

2016

29. Wanjiru Cecilia 48 years, interviewed in Ruai in Oct 2016

30. Watai Nyokabi interviewed in Ruai in October 2016

31. Wanjiru Alice, 48 years, interviewed in Kikuyu in Nov 2016

Tony Sanya- Media max 23rd March 2011 in youtube- Near fight during Embakasi

Ranching Company

Archival sources

KNA/DC/NRB/1/I- Nairobi district political record book

KNA/RN/I/60- Letter from office of district commissioner to the town clerk Nairobi

on 4th October 1945

KNA/RN/1/57- A list of Crown land occupied by the High Commission and non-self-

accounting departments in Nairobi

112

KNA/RN/1/27- Report on conditions among Nairobi’s African population following

the end of emergency on the 12th Jan 1960

KNA/RN/1/126- Report the association of public Health Inspectors Annual

Conference held on May 1961

KNA/RN/1/126- Report by D.S.S.H on Nairobi’s population on growth and the

problem of housing by E.P Wilkinson

KNA/RN/1/45- Report by Councils Chief officers on housing and population dated

May 1964

KNA/RN/1/45- Memo to town clerk on illegal squatters dated 17th July 1965

KNA/RN/I/45- Minutes of meeting of working party on illegal squatters held in

Nairobi on 15th Jan 1964

KNA/RN/1/45- Letter by Nairobi District Commissioner to Permanent Secretary

Ministry of land on illegal squatters in president’s farm dated

13th Mar 1965

KNA/RN/1/45- Memo by P.A Clarke advocate for Nairobi town clerk to Hon B.R

McKenzie, M.P Ministry of Agriculture and Animal husbandly written

on 1st July 1965

KNA/I/46- Letter from ministry of economic planning and development on squatter

problem in Nairobi to ministry of land and settlement dated 8th Sept

1970

KNA/RN/I/130- Letter from ministry of power and communications to the town

clerk City Council of Nairobi

113

Embakasi Ranching unpublished sources

Embakasi Ranching Company -Letter on sub division of block 136 to The Project

Consortium International written on 23rd June 1983.

Embakasi Ranching Company- Record of discussion held at Sadler house, Koinange

Street, Nairobi on 25th May 1983 on sub-division of L.R. No.10903, 7209, 45, 47 and

Eulogy of Samuel Mwangi Thuita

Facts about the company- A document to Embakasi Ranching shareholders from a shareholder called Saka.

List of Embakasi Ranching Schedule of Public utility by Saka

Minutes of the tenth meeting of directors held at the registered office of the company on Friday, 30th October 1990 at 3.00 pm.

Ministry of land- Letter to Embakasi Ranching Company on approval of subdivision

of the scheme due to change from agricultural to residential and

commercial written on 7th December 1999

Muhuri Muchiri -Embakasi Ranching Company limited Chairman’s speech in the

Annual General Meeting in year 2000

114

-Embakasi Ranching Company Limited report of 1982 of

Annual General Meeting

Mukanda Joakino; Receipt of payment of land for 1975

; Receipt of payment of land for 1977

;Receipt for payment of title in 1989

;Share certificate issued in 1983

Title deed showing the grant no L.R. 19846 to Juja properties for 940 years

Government of Kenya publications

The Constitution of Kenya 2010. The National Council for Law Reporting. Kenya

Law Reports

The Land Act,2012. No 6 of 2012. The National Council for Law Reporting. Kenya

Law Reports

Ndung’u et.el, Kenya Government,(2004) Report of the commission of inquiry into

the illegal/irregular allocation of public land, Nairobi, Government printer

Njonjo .C. (1978) Report of the commission of inquiry into land law systems

of Kenya on Principles of a National land policy Framework,

115

constitutional position of land and New Institutional

Framework for land administration. Nairobi, Government printer

UNHABITAT, (2006) Nairobi Urban Sector Profile. Nairobi: UNHABITAT

Case 516 of 2012 of High Court of Kenya obtained online on 27/5/2017 http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/91859. (Obtained online on 19/10/2017)

Magazines

Weekly Review

May 5th 1975 (pg 6) Ngweno Hilary ; Ngwataniro land buying company

December 8th 1977 (pg 5)- ;Origin of Ngwataniro land buying company

Feb 23rd 1978 (pg 21) ; Gikuyu Embu Meru Association holdings

May 30th 1980 (pg

January 4th 1984 (pg 110 ; Peter Kuguru accused of stealing

February 23rd 1985 (pg 21) ; Kandara Investment

October 8th 2014 Pambazuka News,Twiga Farms: The story of a Kenya land grab. https://www.pambazuka.org/land-environment/twiga-farm-story-kenyan land-grab.

Obtained online on 13/12/13.

Racodi C, (2007) Land for Housing in African Cities. Are informal Delivery

Systems Institutional Robust and Pro-poor. Global Urban

Development Magazine. Vol.3. Issue January 25 1985

116

Newspapers

Daily Nation

June 9th 2006; (Mwangi G), Kenya ; Muchiri: Collegues Remember “kind and

honest” politician.

July 10th 2014; Advertisement to Embakasi Ranching Company Limited share

holders

April 6th 2016; Advertisement to Embakasi Ranching Company Limited

shareholders

Aug 19th 2016, (Odhiambo T.) The Kenyatta Succession by Joseph Karimi and Philip

Ochieng

East African Standard

January 26th 1962

January 31st 1962

Taifa Leo June 1989 – List of Embakasi Ranching shareholders to be given land.

The standard

June 18th 2009,( Mwangi Muiruri)- Scramble for Embakasi hidden treasure.

Journals

Ambreena M, The politics of land reforms in Kenya. Cambridge journal Vol 57

Issue1https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-

core/content/view/2D6647FADAFC36E39C8A903C80674650/S0002020614

000080a.pdf/politics_of_land_reform_in_kenya_2012.pdf012. (Obtained

online on 21/12/2015)

Anderson D, (2007) Election Fever: Kenya Crisis. A Violence and Exodus in Kenya’s

Rift Valley 2000: Predictable and Preventable. Journal of East African

Studies Vol 2, Issue 2.

117

https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjea20/2/2.Obtained online 14/12/2014

Bach C. D, (2011) Patrimonialsm and Neopatrimonialsm: Comparative and

trajectories and readings. Commonwealth and comparative

politics. Vol 49 issue 3. Obtained online on 20th Feb. 2016

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14662043.2011.582731

Berman B.J , (1998) Ethnicity,patronage and African state.The politics of uncivil

nationalism African affairs.London, Oxford university press.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/723213. (Obtained online 15/5/2017)

Bates H. R, (2005) Beyond the Miracle of the Market. The Political Economy of

Agrarian Development in Kenya. Cambridge University Press.

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/96/4/1255/67434.

Obtained online on 20/2/2016

Berry S, (2002) Debating the Land Question. Journal of Comparative studies in

Society and History. Vol 44 issue 04.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3879518. (Obtained online on 17/11/2014)

Boone C, (2012) Land Conflict and Distributive Politics in Kenya. African Studies

Review, Vol 55, Issue 01 April.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/african-studies-review/article/land-

conflict-and-distributive-politics-

in kenya/E4FA22345917B4FFE1BF50C6CD2F162B.

(Obtained online on 17/11/2014)

Cammack, D. et al (2011). Neo-patrimonialism, Institutions and Economic growth.

The case of Malawi. IDS Bulletin vol 42 .

118

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43538628.pdf. Obtained

online21/2/2016

Development and Change. (1997) Vol. 27 Issue 1. Published by institute of Social

Studies

Erdmann. G ,et al (2007). Neopatrimonialism Reconsidered: Critical Review and

Elaboration of an Elusive Concept. Commonwealth and Comparative

politics, Vol. 45 issue 1.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14662040601135813.

Obtained online 21/2/2016

Gachaga. T, (2006) Land in Africa: Challenges of Tenure and Reform. At the Issue

Ezine .Vol 4.

http://www.africafiles.org/atissueezine.asp?issue=issue4.

(obtained online on 23/8/2014)

Harberson. J.W, (2008). Land reforms and politics in Kenya, 1954-70. Journal of

Modern Africa. Vol 9, issue 2. https://www.jtor.org/stable/159442

(obtained online on 16/8/20).

Hazlewood A, (1985) Kenya Land-Transfer Programme and their Relevance for

Zimbabwe, The Journal of Morden Africa Vol 23 Issue 3.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/160660.

Kanyinga K, (2009) The Legacy of the White Highlands, Land rights, ethnicity and

the post-2007 elections violence in Kenya. Journal of contemporary

119

African studies, Vol 27 no.3, Institute of Development Studies

University Nairobi

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02589000903154834. .

(Obtained online on 21/11/2014)

Kariuki. S, (2008) We ‘ve been to hell and back, can abotched land reform

programme explain Kenya’s political crisis 1963-2008. Journal of

African Elections, Vol 7 issue 2 Oct 2008.

https://www.eisa.org.za/pdf/JAE7.2Kariuki.pdf.

Klopp M. J, (2000) African Today (Pilfering the Public: The problem of land

Grabbing in Contemporary Kenya) vol 47 no.1 Indian university press.

https://www.jstor.org/citation/info/10.2307/4187305. (Obtained online

on 17/11/2014)

Leo C,(1978) The failure of the Progressive Farmer in Kenya’s Million Acre

Settlement Scheme. The Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol. 16

Issue 4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/159635. (Obtained online on

15/5/2017)

Mabogunje. A .L, (1961) Land tenure in Egba division in western Nigeria.

Cambridge Journals Africa ,volume 31 issue 3 July. .

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/africa/article/some-

comments-on-land-tenure-in-egba-division-western-

nigeria/6CAD0F0DD5B06C2253708416FD7A2E03 (Obtained online

on 17/11/2014)

120

Musyoka. R. (2006) Non- Compliance and formalization: Mutual accommodation in

landsubdivision processs in Eldoret, Kenya. International Development

Planning Review. Vol 28 no. 2. Liverpool University Press.

https://profiles.uonbi.ac.ke/rose_mumbua/publications/non-

Mwesigire. B. ( 2016 ) Righting land wrongs with a pen. The Leadership of Ngugi wa

Thiong’o and Ken Saro Wiwa Leadership and Developing Societies

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328225724_Righting_land_wrongs_

with_the_pen_The_leadership_of_Ngugi_wa_Thiong'o_and_Ken_Saro_Wiwa

_ Leadership_Developing_Societies_1_1_29-57

Shiroya.O. (1979) Politics in Kenya after 1945. The contribution of ex-soldiers.

Transitional Journal of History. Vol 8, no.1/2. Gideon Were

publications. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24328510?seq=1

(Obtained online on 11/8/2020)

Soest.C, (2007) How does neopatrimonialism affect the African states’s revenues.

The case of tax collection in Zambia. The journal of Modern African

studies, vol 45 issue 4.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-

studies/article/how-does-neopatrimonialism-affect-the-african-states-

revenues-the-case-of-tax-collection-in

zambi/528B2EF0795576789AFC29F8AEE7D72A

121

Sorrenson M. P. K ,(1956) Land purchase methods and their effects on Maori

population 1865-1901. The journal of the polynesian society vol 65

no.3 Sept 1956.

https://auckland.rl.talis.com/items/12B0355D-D349-777B-27DF-

68691327C1A7.html

Southall A .R, (2005) Election in Africa between hope and reality. Review of African

Political Economy. Taylor and Francis Journal Vol 32 no.103 march.

Roupe publications. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/crea20/10/26.

(Obtained online on17/11/2014)

Taylor W. E, (2004) Habitat International, Vol 28 Issue 2 June.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/880911468245418597/530010WP

0P111010Box345586B01PUBLIC1.doc. (Obtained online on 18/8/2014)

Dissertations and Thesis

Kariuki A, (2011) Constraints to acquisition and ownership of residential

houses in Kenya. A case of Kasarani Estate Nairobi.

http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/1624. (Obtained online

27/8/2013)

Kiruthu F.M, (2006) The History of the informal enterprises in Kenya .A

case study of jua kali sub-sector of the Nairobi 1899-1998.

Koech L, (2013). Effects of real estate development on growth of estate

agentsinNakurulibrary.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/7200/Lawrence

%20Koech.pdf?sequence=1. (Obtained online 29/8/2013)

122

Wambeti .B, (2013) Effects of marketing strategies on growth of registered real

estate firms in Nairobi County.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71889537.pdf (Obtained online

27/8/2013)

123

Papers

Alila.O et al (1985) Rural Landlessness in Kenya. Institute for Development Studies.

Report for FAO Expert Consultation on; Dynamics, Problems and

Policies of landlessness. Nairobi, University of Nairobi

Kieyah J, (2010) Ndung’u report on land grabbing in Kenya: Legal and economic

analysis. Private Sector Development Division , Kenya Institute for

Public Policy Research and Analysis.KIPPRA Discussion Paper

no.119. http://www.worldcat.org/title/ndungu-report-on-land-grabbing-

in-kenya-legal-and-economic-analysis/oclc/824119668. (Obtained

online on 20/7/2014)

Kanyinga K, (1998) Struggles of Access to land. The land question, accumulation

and changing politics in Kenya. IDS/ working paper no. 504.

http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/41443. (Obtained on line

on 17/11/2014)

Syagga. P.(2010) Public land, historical injustices and the new constitution.

Constitution working paper series 9. http://sidint.net/docs/WP9.pdf.

Owour S. O, et al (2008) Post independence development of Nairobi City, Kenya.

Paper presented at workshop on African capital cities, Dakar.

https://profiles.uonbi.ac.ke/samowuor/publications/owuor-so-t-mbatia-

2008-post-independence-development-nairobi-city-kenya-intern.

(Obtained online on 19/6/2016)

124

Owour S.O, (2006) Small and Medium size towns in context of urbanization

development process in Kenya. Supplementary issue.September.

https://profiles.uonbi.ac.ke/samowuor/publications/owuor-so-2006-

small-and-medium-size-towns-context-urbanization-and-development

Veit P, (2010) Focus on Land in Africa: History of land conflicts in Kenya.

http://www.focusonland.com/fola/en/countries/brief-history-of-land-

conflicts-in-kenya/.

Books

Adam C et el, (2010) Kenya Policies for Prosperity,Newyork. Oxford University

Press

Ayandele et el (1971) The Growth of African civilization. The making of modern

Africa. The late nineteenth century to present day. London

Longman publishers.

Baumol W. J, (1970) Economic Dynamics, 3rd edition, Macmillan.Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Bayart J,F. (2009) The state in Africa politics of the Belly. Cambridge. Polity press.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/state-in-africa-the-politics-of-the-

belly/oclc/680431278

Beatie H.J, (1979) Land and lineage in China. Camridge. Cambridge university

press

Bernstern H, (1973) Underdevelopment and Development .Newyork. penguin

publishers.

125

Byamvgisha F.K, (2013). Securing Africa’s land for a shared prosperity. A

programme to scale up reforms and investment. World

bank, Washington

Carrey J, (2012) Conflicts over land and water. Oxford. Michigan .State

university press.

Clayton A et el (1974) Government and labour in Kenya 1895-1963.London.

Frank Cass publishers

Dilley. M.R, (1966) British Policy in Kenya Colony .London. Fran Cass and co. publishers

Donner W, (1999) Land use and Environment in Indonesia.London. Institute of Asia

affairs publishers .

Duighan P. et el (1975). Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960 vol 4. The economics of

colonialism, London.Cambridge University press.

Elkins C, (2005). Britain’s Gulag, The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya.

London.Jonathan Cape publishers

Feyissals D. et el (2015) Borders and Borderlands as Resources in the Horn of

African .Long house publishers

Galbraith J. S, (1957). Hudson's Bay Company As an Imperial Factor 1821–1869.

Barkeley and Los Angeles: University of Califonia Press.

https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/hudson%27s-bay-

company-imperial-factor-1821-1869/

126

Githumo M. (1981). Land and Nationalism, The impact of land expropriation and

land Grievances upon the Rise and Development of Nationalist

Movement in Kenya, 1885-1939, Washington: University Press

America

Gikandi. S. (2009). Cambridge Studies in African and Carribean Literature. Ngugi

wa Thiong’o. Newyork. Cambridge University press

Hake A, (1977). African Metropolis. Nairobi self -help city. Sussex university

press.

Harbeson J .W, (1973). Nation bulding in Kenya. The role of land

Reform.Eraston:Northwestern University press

Hyden,G. (2000). The Governance Challenge in Africa. Trenton. African world press.

http://www.jsdafrica.com/Jsda/V12No6_Fall2010_B/PDF/BOOK%20REVIE

W%20-%20African%20Perspectives%20on%20Governance.pdf

%20African%20Perspectives%20on%20Governance.pdf

Kanogo T, (1987) Squatters and the roots of Mau Mau. Nairobi: East African

Education publishers.

Kojo S et el (2008) Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. London: Zed book

publishers.

https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/land-and-sustainable-

development-in-africa/

Lamb G, (1974) Peasant Politics. London: Davidson Publishing limited

127

Mather A.S, (1986) Land use .Longman group publishers, London.

https://www.amazon.com/Land-Use-S-Mather/dp/0582301319.

Mbithi M.P et el, (1975) The Spontanous Settlement problem in Kenya. Dar-es-salam:

East African Literature Bureau.

Morgan W.T. (1967) Nairobi: City and Region, Nairobi: Oxford University Press

Ogot B.A et al, (1995) Decolonization and Independence. Kenya 1940-93.Nairobi:

East African publishers

Rosberg C.G et al, (1966) The myth of Mau Mau: Nationalism in Kenya .Nairobi. East

African Publishing House

Sorrenson M.P.K. (1967) Land Reform in the Kikuyu Country. A Study in

Government. Nairobi. Oxford University Press.

Tanka E , (1990) Development of land relations in Japanese agriculture prior to

world war. Budapest Hungary

Thurston. A. (1987) Smallholders Agriculture in Colonial Kenya: The Official Mind

and Swaynnerton Plan. Cambridge African Monographs 8.

London. African Studies Centre

Waweru K, (2014) The ABC of real estate investment in Kenya: The law, The logic,

the math.Nairobi,Amazon publisher world war.

.Werlin. H, (1974) Governing an African. A study of Nairobi .Newyork.

Africana Publishing Company.

Zeleza .T, (1993) A Modern Economic History of Africa, vol 1.Dakar.

Condesria Publishers.

128

Appendix i

Interview schedule for shareholders

Name ………………………………………………………………………..

Age ……………………………………………………………………………………..

Sex………………………………………………………………………………………

Occupation……………………………………………………………………………...

Place of birth……………………………………………………………………………

Year joined the company……………………………………………………………….

Residence……………………………………………………………………………….

Formation of Embakasi ranching company

When was Embakasi ranching company formed?......

Who were the founders?......

What were reasons for formation of this company?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

How did the shareholders raise money for buying the land?......

Who sold the land to the share holders?......

What was price of one share in the beginning?......

How has the price of a share changed over the years?......

Who was the first chairperson of the company?......

Who were subsequent chairpersons?......

129

Achievements of the company

Do you think the company has achieved its objectives?......

Which objectives have been fulfilled?......

In whose leadership/chairmanship do you think the company achieved much/………

Do you think the shareholders have benefited from the company’s achievements?......

Give ways in which they have benefited……………………………………………….

Who else has benefited from the company?......

Does this company involve in other activities for development other than selling land?......

How have those activities contributed to development of Nairobi County or the country?......

Do you think the land Acts of 2012 has helped this company?......

Challenges faced by the company

Many land companies in Kenya face a number of challenges. Has this company faced challenges of the following nature?

Are there leadership wrangles?…………………………………………………………

.Are there corruption cases?………………………………………………………….…

Has the company faced court battles?…………………………………………………..

Has the company faced election issues?......

Are there other challenges in this company?......

How are such issue resolved when they occur?......

Do you think that is the right way of resolving issues?......

How else would you suggest the challenges be resolved?......

Are there allegations that taint the image of this company?

130

Are they real?......

Are they put out of proportion?......

What/who causes them?......

What do think can be done to save the company’s image?......

131

Appendix ii

Interview schedule for company directors and employees.

Name ………………………………………………………………

Sex………………………………………………………………………………………

Age……………………………………………………………………………………...

Place of birth……………………………………………………………………………

Area of residence………………………………………………………………………..

Years of service in the company………………………………......

Department……………………………………………………………………………

Professional qualification……………………………………………………………….

Formation of Embakasi Ranching Company

What is the origin of the name of the company?......

Who were the founders?......

When was the company formed?......

Where did company draw its membership?......

What were the reasons for forming this company?......

How many acres of land did the company buy?......

Did the company buy the land from a colonial settler or government?......

What was the source of funds used in buying the land?......

Does the company have land elsewhere other than Njiru sub-county?

132

Achievements of the company

The name of this company, suggest agricultural activities. Was there livestock when this company started?......

Which breeds of livestock were in the ranch?......

Which crops was the ranch growing?......

When did the company stop farming activities?......

Why was farming stopped?......

Do you think the company has fulfilled its objectives?......

How have the shareholders benefited from the company?......

Has the company involved itself with other development activities besides selling land? ……………………………………………………………………………………

How do you think this has led to development of the County or the

Country?......

How did the Land Act of 2012 affect the company?

What challenges have you faced in relation to shareholders?......

Have you faced financial constraints?......

Have you faced leadership wrangles?......

Has the company ever had integrity issues?......

Are the shareholders able to obtain title deeds from the ministry of land easily?......

What is the procedure followed when obtaining a title deed?......

Are there cases of demolition of houses?......

If yes what caused it?......

Have you had cases where two or more shareholders are claiming ownership of same piece of land?......

What are the causes of double allocation?......

133

How does the company resolve cases of double allocation?......

Has the company ever been sued in a court of law?......

If yes (above) what were the accusations?......

Has the company ever had conflicts with County or National government?......

Land companies in Kenya are associated with many negative things like corruption and poor management. Is this company associated with such issues?......

What do you think is the cause of these negative issues above?......

What do you think can be used to avoid such negative publicity?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

134

Appendix iii

Interview schedule for National Government Official

Name ………………………………………………………………

Job title……………………………………………………………………………….

Region in charge ……………………………………………………………………..

Duration in Njiru district……………………………………………………………..

Achievements of the company``

Which kind of activity or activities Embakasi ranching is involved in?

......

In which way do you think this company has contributed to development?

......

How is the relationship between the company and the government?......

How did the Land Acts of 2012 affect this company?

Challenges of company

Has this company had conflict with government?...... If yes, explain ………………………………………………………………………………… Has the company ever caused a conflict in the area under your jurisdiction?...... If yes explain……………………………………………………………………………....

Has the company ever had a challenge that was brought to your attention?...... If yes explain……………………………………………………………………………....

Do you know how the company resolve their problems?......

Do you agree with the way conflicts are resolved in the company?......

What would you suggest for company to resolve their challenges?......

135

What negative issues are associated with land companies in the area you are in charge of?......

Is this company accused with any negative issue by members of the public?

What negative issue is this company associated with?......

Does the government have any issue against this company?......

136

Appendix iv

Interview schedule for Nairobi County official

Name …………………………………………………………………

Job title…………………………………………………………………………………

Duration in the current station………………………………………………………….

Origin of the company

When was this company formed?......

What were reasons for forming this company?......

When did this company stop growing crops and rearing animals?......

When did construction of houses start in this company’s land?......

Achievements of land Embakasi Ranching company

Do you think this company has contributed to development of Nairobi County?......

What has it contributed in?......

How was land for sewage plant in Ruai curved out from the company’s land?

How did the Land Acts of 2012 affect E.R.C?......

Challenges of the company

How is the relationship between the company and the county government?...... company are paid to the county government?

Are the land rates paid by individuals or the company?......

Does this company abide with county government’s by-laws?......

137

What are the ills associated with land companies in the area under your jurisdiction?......

......

Is this company associated with such ills?......

Do you think this is true or false allegation?......

What causes such ills?......

What do you think can be done to avoid negative attitudes towards land companies?

………………………………………………………………………………….

138

Appendix v

Map of Kenya showing Nairobi County

Source: National Atlas of Kenya (1990)

139

Appendix vi Map of Nairobi County showing Njiru Sub County

Source: Nairobi Development Plan

140

Appendix vii

Photograph showing Muhuri Muchiri public stadium

(Taken by researcher at Ruai in Dec 2016)

141

Appendix viii

Photograph showing Nairobi City Water and Sewage Company treatment plant at Ruai

(Taken by research at Ruai Dec 2016)

142

Appendix ix

Photograph showing source of water (bore hole)

Taken researcher at Githunguri (Ruai) in Dec 2016

143

Appendix x

Photograph showing a tarmac road connecting the estate with Kangundo road.

Taken by the researcher in Dec 2016.

144

Appendix xi

Photograph showing tarmac road to the sewage plant

Taken by researcher on Dec 2016.

145

Appendix xii

Photograph showing one the churches in the area

Taken by researcher near Ruai shopping centre in Dec 2016

146

Appendix xiii

Photograph showing the Presbyterian Church of East Africa

Taken by researcher in May 2017

147

Appendix xiv Photograph showing innocent ACK church

Taken by researcher in May 2017

148

Appendix xv

Photograph showing Ruai Market

Taken by researcher at Rua market in Dec 2017

149

Appendix xvi

Photograph showing Ruai town

Taken by researcher in Dec 2017

150

Appendix vii

Photograph showing Ruai shopping centre

Taken by researcher at Ruai town in April 2017

151

Appendix xviii

Photograph showing sign posts of development projects in the area

Taken by researcher in May 2017

152

Appendix xix

Photograph showing Muhuri Muchiri Secondary school

Taken by researcher in May 2017 Ruai estate

153

Appendix xx

Letter of introduction

P O BOX 75355

NAIROBI

Dear respondent,

I am a postgraduate student at Kenyatta University pursuing a master’s degree in history. I am required to write a thesis as part of fulfilment of this course. My topic is:

An analysis of land buying companies in post independent Kenya: The case of

Embakasi Ranching Company, Nairobi County, 1963-2013.

I have prepared questions which I would request you to answer in an oral interview to the best of your knowledge. The information requested is purely for academic purposes and will be treated with confidence.

Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

Elizabeth Kibanya

154

Appendix xxi

Research permit

155

Appendix xxii

Letter from graduate school to NACOSTI

156

Appendix xxiii

Consent form

THE HISTORY OF EMBAKASI RANCHING COMPANY IN NAIROBI CITY COUNTY, 1963- 2013

I………………………………………………………… agree to participate in the research titled “The history of Embakasi Ranching Company in Nairobi City County,

1963-2013.

-I understand the general purposes for the research.

-I have been assured of the security and confidentiality of my personal information.

-I consent to publication of this research

Name…………………………………………………………

Signature………………………………………………………

Date………………………………………………………….

157