The demand letter alleges that Gachagua and Mwangi moved into Unit 02, Block D, at Skyrock Apartments in Kileleshwa before fulfilling the agreed condition — the full settlement of Ksh.25 million. By doing so, they are accused of acting in bad faith, undermining the property owner’s contractual rights.

Why This Matters: Breach of Sale Agreement

The sale agreement reportedly spelled out the rules clearly — pay in full, then take possession. This structure protects sellers from exploitation and ensures transparency in property transactions. The accusation against Gachagua and Mwangi is that they bypassed this rule, effectively enjoying ownership benefits without the rightful exchange of value.

The Owner’s Perspective: Exploitation and Frustration

Royal Importers and Exporters Limited, the company behind the apartment, frames this as deliberate deception. Their lawyers argue that the two have “taken the client for a ride,” enjoying occupation while withholding payment. From the owner’s standpoint, this is not just a breach but a calculated attempt to manipulate contractual loopholes.

The Legal Demands: Vacate or Pay

The demand letter is blunt. It calls for three immediate steps:

1. 1. Vacate the Apartment – hand back possession immediately.

1. 2. Admit Liability – acknowledge unlawful occupation.

1. 3. Pay Outstanding Amounts – settle dues based on prevailing market value, which may now exceed the original Ksh.25 million.

If ignored, the warning is clear: litigation, damages, and possible auctioning of the apartment’s contents will follow.

Why Now? Timing of the Showdown

The timing of the demand is not coincidental. With property values in Nairobi climbing, owners are less willing to tolerate delayed payments or casual breaches. The letter dated September 30, 2025, suggests the owner has reached the end of patience and is now leveraging legal channels to reclaim what they see as unlawfully withheld income.

The Bigger Picture: Property Rights Under Scrutiny

This case underscores a wider issue in Kenya’s property market — high-profile individuals accused of flouting rules, testing the strength of contracts, and daring owners to fight back. It highlights why clarity in agreements and swift enforcement matter, regardless of status.

Conclusion: Why the Dispute Exists

At its core, this battle is about accountability. The “why” is rooted in alleged disregard for contractual obligations — occupying a property before paying what was owed. To the seller, it is a betrayal of trust; to the accused, it may become a drawn-out legal fight. One thing is certain: the black-and-white rule of property ownership leaves little room for bending, even for former power brokers.