Floriculture International Limited at Centre of Gachoka Family Eviction Storm as Tony Gachoka Accuses Police of Backing Violent Thika Raid

A bitter land dispute involving Floriculture International Limited and the family of journalist Tony Gachoka has erupted into a major controversy over police conduct, competing court orders and accusations of violent eviction, after more than 200 men were said to have stormed the family's Thika residence, leaving former radio presenter Ciku Muiruri injured and her elderly mother displaced. The confrontation has raised serious questions about how a longstanding property dispute escalated into an operation that Gachoka describes as a violent invasion of his mother's home. At the centre of the controversy is Floriculture International Limited, which maintains that it lawfully acquired the disputed property nearly three decades ago and has obtained court decisions supporting its ownership. Gachoka, however, accuses individuals involved in the eviction effort of exploiting tribunal proceedings and police involvement to remove his family from the property despite orders he says had suspended the eviction. The dispute has now placed the actions of police commanders in Thika, officials of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) and the enforcement of judicial decisions under public scrutiny. The controversy also raises a fundamental question: where does lawful enforcement of property rights end, and where does criminal violence begin? Gachoka Accuses Police of Facilitating Attack on Family Home According to Gachoka's public statement, more than 200 men carrying crude weapons descended on the family's coffee farm in Thika at approximately 3 a.m. on October 12, 2026. He says the intruders confiscated family members' mobile phones to prevent them from seeking assistance before proceeding to force occupants from the residence. His sister, former radio presenter Ciku Muiruri, was assaulted during the confrontation, according to the family's account. Gachoka further claims that the attackers attempted to sexually assault Ciku, damaged property and threatened other relatives. He says his mother and other family members were forced from the house and subsequently left living in a tent while armed men remained on the property. The accusations describe conduct far beyond the ordinary enforcement of a court order. Even where a landowner has obtained a valid judgment, enforcement must comply with the law. A court order cannot authorise physical assault, robbery, sexual violence or the use of armed groups to terrorise occupants. Gachoka maintains that police officers were present during the operation and failed to stop the violence. Floriculture International Limited Claims Ownership Through 1995 Land Transfer The controversy is rooted in a land transaction dating back more than 30 years. According to the company's account of the litigation, charges were registered against the property in June 1993 to secure loans of Sh15 million and Sh30 million advanced to Katka Islands Limited. Following default on the loans, the lenders exercised their statutory power of sale, and the property was transferred to Floriculture International Limited in May 1995. Central Kenya Limited challenged the transaction in Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 3590 of 1995. The dispute continued through the courts for decades. On February 14, 2020, Justice Francis Tuiyott dismissed Central Kenya Limited's challenge, finding that the company had failed to prove its case against the sale. Floriculture relies on that judgment as confirmation of its ownership rights and entitlement to possession of the property. The company maintains that continued occupation of the land interferes with its right to quiet enjoyment. This history is significant because it establishes that Floriculture's ownership claim is supported by judicial proceedings rather than merely an assertion made during the recent confrontation. However, a judgment supporting ownership does not resolve every question about the legality of a particular eviction operation. March 2026 Court Decision Adds Another Layer to the Dispute On March 23, 2026, the Environment and Land Court in Thika dismissed a constitutional petition seeking to reopen questions concerning ownership of the property. The court determined that the issues had already been adjudicated and treated the petition as res judicata and an abuse of the court process. The decision strengthened Floriculture's position that ownership questions previously determined by the courts should not be repeatedly reopened through fresh litigation. Nevertheless, the subsequent dispute over occupation, tribunal jurisdiction and eviction procedures continued. Those issues require careful distinction. Ownership of land, entitlement to possession and the lawful process for removing occupants are connected but legally separate questions. Gachoka Challenges Business Premises Tribunal Proceedings Gachoka's account focuses heavily on proceedings before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. He says Floriculture initiated a reference against his sister on April 9, 2026, and obtained an ex parte eviction order from tribunal member Mike Makori on April 16. The family challenges the basis on which the matter was brought before the tribunal. According to Gachoka, Ciku was living in her mother's residential house on a coffee farm and was neither operating a business from the premises nor occupying the property as a business tenant. He argues that the tribunal should never have been asked to treat her as a commercial tenant. Family lawyer Gwandaru Thuita subsequently obtained an order from tribunal member Joyce Osodo suspending the eviction. Gachoka says another tribunal member, Gad Kipkirui Chemoiyai, later lifted that protection. The dispute eventually reached the tribunal chairman. According to Gachoka's description of the September 17, 2026 ruling, the chairman determined that the premises were not business premises, that Ciku was not a business tenant and that the claimant had misled the tribunal. He says Floriculture was ordered to pay Sh200,000 in costs. Those findings, if accurately reflected in the written ruling, raise important questions about the jurisdiction and handling of the earlier proceedings. Fresh October 5 Eviction Order Deepens Legal Controversy Despite the September ruling described by Gachoka, Floriculture returned to the tribunal through further proceedings. A ruling dated October 5, 2026, directed Peter Mwangi and Charity Wanjiku Muiruri to hand over vacant possession of Block 8/264, identified in the supplied account with Land Reference 7705, to Floriculture International Limited. The order also directed the commander of Ngojiwa Police Station to enforce the decision. Gachoka says the renewed proceedings contradicted the earlier tribunal determination and that the family subsequently obtained orders suspending the eviction. The competing accounts make the precise wording, dates, service and legal effect of each order critical. If a valid stay was in force and had been served before the operation, the authorities responsible for enforcement would need to explain their actions. Equally, Floriculture is entitled to rely on valid court orders supporting its property rights. The central issue is whether the October operation complied with the orders legally operative at the time and with the statutory procedures governing eviction. Floriculture Wrote to Inspector General Seeking Police Intervention A significant development in the dispute is a letter dated October 9, 2026, which Floriculture International Limited sent to the Inspector General of Police. In the letter, the company requested police intervention concerning what it described as continued trespass and forcible detention of Land Reference 7705/2 in Thika Municipality. Floriculture argued that Central Kenya Limited continued occupying the property despite the February 2020 High Court judgment dismissing its challenge to the sale and transfer. The company asked the National Police Service to investigate the occupation, record statements and consider whether the evidence warranted criminal charges. It also requested that appropriate findings be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Floriculture further sought police protection during any lawful recovery of the property and measures to prevent further entry, construction, cultivation or removal of items from the disputed land. The company requested written confirmation of police action within 14 days. The October 9 letter is particularly important because it places a formal request for police involvement just days before the October 12 operation described by Gachoka. That chronology demands an explanation of what police officers were instructed to do, who authorised their deployment and whether the operation remained within the limits of lawful enforcement. The existence of a request for police assistance does not establish that Floriculture authorised or participated in any violence described by the family. Floriculture Claims Earlier Enforcement Efforts Were Undermined Floriculture also maintains that it had previously presented four court orders to the Kiambu County security team in an effort to secure possession. According to the company's account, those efforts were frustrated by a member of the security team whom it accuses of having a personal interest in the dispute. The company consequently sought impartial police enforcement of its claimed property rights. That accusation introduces a separate concern about possible conflicts of interest within the local security administration. If police officers were improperly obstructing enforcement, that conduct requires investigation. If other officers assisted an unlawful eviction or tolerated violence, those actions also require investigation. Neither concern should be ignored simply because the parties disagree over ownership and possession. Police Presence During Eviction Raises Serious Questions Gachoka says the family's lawyer personally served a stay order on senior officers in Thika, including the OCPD, DCI officers, the OCS and Administration Police leadership. He maintains that police remained at the property during the removal of his mother and other family members. He also claims an individual leading the group fired shots into the air. The family's account identifies potential offences including forcible entry, assault, robbery with violence, malicious destruction of property and threats. These are matters for criminal investigation, not merely arguments to be settled through competing civil pleadings. The National Police Service should clarify whether officers were deployed pursuant to the October 5 tribunal order, the October 9 letter, another lawful instruction or a combination of those circumstances. It should also establish whether officers received the stay order described by Gachoka and what steps they took to protect occupants from violence. Nelson Havi Named as Lawyer in Dispute Gachoka identifies Senior Counsel Nelson Havi as representing the interests opposing his family in the dispute. He also refers to Havi's association with Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi. The involvement of legal counsel in litigation is not evidence of wrongdoing, and professional relationships do not establish responsibility for the conduct of parties or police officers. Any questions about the legal handling of the dispute must be assessed through the pleadings, court orders and actions of the individuals directly involved. Gachoka has separately suggested that the confrontation is connected to his criticism of President William Ruto's administration and his involvement in other litigation. That proposed political connection requires independent evidence before it can be established. A Property Judgment Cannot Become a Licence for Violence The Thika dispute presents two issues that must be examined without confusing one for the other. First, Floriculture International Limited has set out a history of judicial decisions supporting its ownership claim, including the 2020 High Court judgment and the March 2026 Environment and Land Court decision. Second, Gachoka and his family have raised serious accusations concerning the methods used during the October eviction operation, the treatment of family members and the conduct of police. Both issues deserve scrutiny. A party entitled to possession must pursue enforcement through lawful procedures. Likewise, occupants disputing an eviction must have access to the courts and the protections available under the law. Neither a contested claim of ownership nor a valid judgment excuses criminal violence. Inspector General, Judiciary and IPOA Face Questions The National Police Service should clarify the instructions governing the deployment of officers to the disputed property. The Judiciary should provide clarity on the status and interaction of the tribunal orders, including the September 17 ruling, the October 5 order and any subsequent stay. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority should examine credible complaints concerning police involvement in the reported violence. Investigators should also establish the identities of individuals accused of assaulting Ciku, threatening family members, damaging property and preventing occupants from seeking assistance. Floriculture should be given an opportunity to respond specifically to accusations concerning the October 12 operation, while the family should be allowed to present evidence supporting its claims. The question now confronting the authorities is not simply who owns the Thika property. It is whether the law was followed when possession was pursued, whether valid court orders were respected and whether police protected citizens or failed them during a violent confrontation. For Tony Gachoka, his sister Ciku Muiruri and their mother, those questions are deeply personal. For Floriculture International Limited, the dispute concerns the enforcement of property rights it says have been upheld through decades of litigation. For the police and the justice system, the case presents a wider test of accountability. A court judgment can determine ownership. It cannot excuse an assault, authorise intimidation or place any individual above the law.