A trail of disputed property transactions, contradictory sworn statements, criminal proceedings and bitter ownership battles is putting Somali businessman Abdirashid Abdul Sharifow under growing scrutiny, raising questions about how he has repeatedly found himself at the centre of controversial land deals in Kenya.
From a prime parcel in Nairobi’s South C estate to a sprawling 41-acre family property along Thika Superhighway, Sharifow’s name has surfaced in disputes involving contested titles, allegations of obtaining land registration through false pretences and questions about the documentation used to establish ownership.
The latest controversy involves Floriculture International Limited, a company claiming ownership of the property historically associated with the Muiruri-Gachoka family.
What makes the dispute particularly troubling is that it is no longer simply a disagreement between competing property owners. It has escalated into allegations of forced eviction, violence, questionable documentation and attempts to use legal and administrative processes to secure possession of land whose ownership history remains contested.
The businessman denies no wrongdoing merely by being named in these disputes, and allegations against him must be tested through the courts. However, the available court records and investigative findings raise questions that deserve answers.
The South C land controversy: A criminal case over registration
One of the earliest documented controversies involving Sharifow emerged in 2021, when he appeared before the Milimani Law Courts over the registration of a prime parcel of land in Nairobi’s South C estate.
According to a report by The Standard published on May 7, 2021, Sharifow, also identified as Zainulabidin Sharif, faced allegations of fraudulently procuring registration of a title and impersonation.
The charge sheet accused him of procuring registration of the property between January 2018 and June 2020 through false pretences. He denied the accusations.
The case involved LR No. 209/3630, with investigators questioning the circumstances under which the property was registered.
The matter subsequently featured in Constitutional Petition E185 of 2021, in which Sharifow and other petitioners challenged aspects of the criminal investigations and related proceedings.
In a ruling delivered on October 9, 2024, the High Court examined an application seeking to reopen proceedings and set aside a consent order recorded in 2021. The court record contains the petitioners’ allegations of intimidation and coercion by an investigating officer, which must be distinguished from judicial findings.
The South C controversy is significant because it demonstrates that the questions surrounding Sharifow’s involvement in disputed property registrations did not begin with the current Thika dispute.
The 41-acre Gachoka property: Contradictions over how the land was acquired
The most explosive questions have emerged from the dispute over LR No. 7705/2, a 41-acre property along Thika Superhighway.
The land was historically associated with the Muiruri-Gachoka family, which maintains that its property was improperly used to secure loans advanced to Katka Islands Limited.
The controversy dates back to 1993, when Trust Bank and Trust Finance registered charges of Sh15 million and Sh30 million against the property to secure loans.
Central Kenya Limited challenged the transactions, arguing that the individuals who purportedly authorised the charges lacked the necessary authority.
The lenders maintained that the charges were lawful and that they subsequently exercised their statutory power of sale after default.
The property was eventually transferred to Floriculture International Limited in 1995.
However, the circumstances surrounding the acquisition have become a major point of contention, particularly following Sharifow’s own statements about the transaction.
In a sworn statement made in 2024, Sharifow reportedly said he and businessman Satishchandra Venilal Naker acquired the property through a public auction for Sh60 million.
But in a subsequent statement in 2025, he reportedly changed his account, saying the acquisition was through a private treaty rather than a public auction.
The change raises an obvious question: if the acquisition was conducted through a public auction, where are the corresponding auction records? And if it was a private treaty, what documents establish the transaction and its terms?
There is another issue.
Sharifow reportedly claimed that he co-founded Floriculture with Naker in 1995, yet later stated that he only became a director after purchasing 500 shares from Naker in 2023.
These discrepancies have attracted the attention of investigators.
According to findings filed in court on February 19, 2026, Sergeant Samuel Macharia reported that Sharifow was unable to produce documents demonstrating how he acquired the property.
The officer indicated an intention to charge him with obtaining registration by false pretences, while also recommending investigations into other parties involved in the transaction.
These were investigative findings and recommendations, not a conviction. Nevertheless, they place the businessman under considerable scrutiny over the documentary foundation of Floriculture’s claim.
A court victory that did not end the dispute
Floriculture has relied heavily on the February 14, 2020 High Court judgment in Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited and 12 others.
Justice Francis Tuiyott dismissed Central Kenya Limited’s case, finding that the company had failed to establish through evidence that Anthony Muiruri Gachoka was neither its chairman nor a director when the disputed documents were executed.
The ruling was a significant victory for the defendants, including Floriculture.
However, the judgment did not end every controversy surrounding the property. The family pursued an appeal, challenging the earlier decision and maintaining that the transactions were irregular.
Floriculture’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Nelson Havi, has insisted that his client is the rightful owner and is entitled to possession.
The Gachoka family, on the other hand, maintains that the original transactions were fraudulent and that the property’s title history needs further examination.
The distinction matters: a court dismissing a challenge on the evidence presented is not the same as a finding that every allegation made by the opposing parties was true or false.
From ownership claims to an alleged forced takeover
The latest developments have turned the Thika property dispute into a security and human-rights controversy.
On October 12, 2026, more than 200 men reportedly descended on the Gachoka family home in a pre-dawn operation.
Former radio presenter Ciku Muiruri, her mother Margaret, brother Pius and other relatives were reportedly caught up in the incident.
The family alleges that members were assaulted, household belongings destroyed and occupants forcibly removed from parts of the property.
Ciku reportedly sustained head injuries after being struck with a crowbar, while the family’s 80-year-old matriarch, Margaret, was left living in a tent on the disputed property.
Sharifow was identified by members of the family among individuals allegedly associated with the operation. These allegations have not been established through a criminal conviction.
Floriculture, through its legal representatives, has defended its occupation, maintaining that it acquired the property lawfully and is entitled to possession.
The company has also accused public officers of obstructing enforcement of court orders.
The controversial use of tribunal proceedings
Another aspect of the dispute concerns Floriculture’s attempts to secure vacant possession through the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
According to reports, an earlier reference was dismissed by the tribunal chairman, who questioned the company’s treatment of a residential bedroom in an elderly woman’s home as business premises.
The company subsequently filed another reference, with a different tribunal member issuing ex-parte orders on October 5, 2026, directing certain family members to give vacant possession.
The development has raised questions about the circumstances under which the second set of orders was obtained, particularly given the earlier tribunal decision.
The Gachoka family views the proceedings as part of a wider attempt to remove them from property they have occupied for decades.
Floriculture maintains that it is acting within the law.
The businessman has also been drawn into a confrontation with local security officials after being summoned alongside members of the Gachoka family to appear before the Kiambu County Security and Intelligence Committee.
He reportedly declined to attend, instead issuing a protest letter questioning the committee’s authority and alleging a conflict of interest.
How many other properties have faced similar controversies?
The central question surrounding Sharifow is not simply whether Floriculture has a valid claim to the Thika property.
It is why his name has repeatedly appeared in land transactions and disputes involving allegations of questionable registration, contested ownership and documentation that investigators or opposing parties have challenged.
The South C property dispute, the Thika acquisition and other reported proceedings involving disputed land interests provide a basis for closer scrutiny of his business dealings.
But it would be premature to declare that he has perfected land fraud as an established criminal fact. The allegations, court proceedings and investigative recommendations must be assessed separately, and the businessman is entitled to a fair hearing.
The authorities should establish whether the documents supporting these transactions were genuine, whether statutory procedures were followed and whether any public officials facilitated irregular transfers.
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions also face questions about the progress of investigations and whether recommendations for prosecution have translated into formal charges.
For the Gachoka family, the consequences are deeply personal. A property dispute that began decades ago has now left an elderly woman reportedly living in a tent while rival parties fight over ownership and possession.
For Kenya’s land administration system, the case raises a broader concern: how can disputed property titles continue to generate years of litigation, conflicting claims and confrontations while ordinary families struggle to protect their homes?
Sharifow’s land dealings now demand answers. Who sold the properties, who authorised the transactions, where are the original documents, and why do allegations of irregular registration keep following the disputes in which his name appears?
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
