An American investor has moved to the Environment and Land Court at Milimani, claiming he was fleeced of Sh225 million in a botched off-plan property deal tied to the high-profile 88 Nairobi development.
In court papers, the investor identified as KYH paints what he describes as a calculated scheme that led to the loss of more than Sh161 million after he committed to purchase ten premium apartments in the luxury skyscraper.
The 88 Nairobi Deal
The project, undertaken by Eighty-Eight Nairobi Limited, was marketed as Africa’s tallest residential tower and a symbol of opulence in Nairobi’s Upper Hill.
KYH says he signed the purchase agreement in March 2024 for a total consideration of Sh225 million, attracted by promises of high returns, world-class finishes, and strong capital appreciation.
According to the filings, by October 2024, he had paid approximately $1.25 million — more than 70 percent of the purchase price — fully settling seven of the ten units.
Sudden Default Notice
The dispute arose when the investor says he received a final notice demanding an additional $250,000 within three days, failure to which the developer would cancel the agreement.
He argues that the notice period was unreasonable, particularly given that he is based in the United States and frequently travels. He further claims that despite formally instructing the developer to route all official correspondence through his Kenyan lawyers, critical notices were sent directly to him.
In a sworn affidavit, he describes the move as deliberate and designed to trigger a technical default.
“What was presented as Nairobi’s iconic address has turned into a financial trap,” he states.
Liquidated Damages Clause
At the heart of the dispute is a contractual clause allowing the developer to retain up to 50 percent of the purchase price as liquidated damages in the event of default.
In this case, the investor says that could translate to roughly Sh113 million. He contends that the amount is punitive, disproportionate and amounts to unjust enrichment.
He further alleges that the developer utilized his $1.25 million to fund construction while declining to transfer title or refund the money. Under the agreement, any refund would allegedly depend on resale of the units and would not attract interest.
Multiple Respondents Named
The suit also names Jonathan Jackson, associated with the project through the Lordship Group, as having played a central role in marketing the development to diaspora investors.
Other respondents include Bank of Baroda, the Nairobi Lands Registrar and the Attorney-General.
KYH is seeking declarations that the termination of his agreement was unlawful and that his proprietary interests in the fully paid units remain valid. He also wants the court to restrain enforcement of forfeiture clauses and to order restitution of the sums paid.
Wider Market Concerns
In a dramatic turn, the investor has asked the court to allow other buyers in similar circumstances within the same project to join the proceedings — potentially opening the door to a broader legal battle over off-plan property sales practices.
The case adds to growing unease in Kenya’s off-plan property market, particularly where luxury developments heavily target diaspora investors with promises of prestige and profit.
The respondents had not filed their defence by the time of publication. The matter is awaiting directions at Milimani.
For now, the dispute casts a long shadow over 88 Nairobi, raising fresh questions about risk, transparency, and accountability in Kenya’s high-end real estate sector.
