Labour CS Florence Bore has addressed the controversy surrounding the Sh120million Karen home that has seen her clash with Gatanga Member of Parliament, Edward Muriu who accused her illegally breaking into and occupying his family home in Karen.
The CS released a lengthy statement in which she gave her side of the story, revealing that she got the house from the MP after entering a 90-day agreement in which she made a down payment of 10 percent.
The CS noted that she was surprised after the MP attempted to evict her family from the home.
Below is her full statement.
My attention is drawn to the viral media reports on the sale and purchase transaction of a house in Karen between myself and a company associated with (an MP from Murang'a).
I entered into an agreement to purchase the property at a negotiated and agreed purchase price. Resultantly, I signed my part of the agreement for sale and transmitted the agreement through my lawyers to the vendor's lawyers for signing on their part.
Their lawyers acknowledged receipt of the signed agreement for sale by stamping on the forwarding letter by my advocates.
In compliance with the respective clauses of the agreement, I sourced a 10 per cent deposit from my Sacco and paid directly to the Vendor's lawyers' account via RTGS. It was a term in the agreement for sale that the completion period of the transaction was 90 days from the date of signing the agreement.
We agreed that I take occupation of the house while I retreated to seek a mortgage facility for the balance, which I legitimately expected to obtain within the agreed transaction period of 90 days.
READ: MP at the center of Sh120M Karen house drama breaks silence, names CS
Unfortunately, in an astounding wave of events, in less than 30 days of the agreement, the MP and his wife attempted to unlawfully evict my children from the house while I was out of the country.
They were accompanied by armed goons necessitating the need for police presence on the premises. For a colleague in leadership to take advantage of my absence from the country to run a hate campaign instead of waiting to engage me upon return is not only queer but baffling.
The dramatised and sensational allegations are fabricated to unlawfully dissociate from the agreement ostensibly because they have found a "better deal".
The transaction was a private engagement between a willing seller and a willing buyer, both parties duly represented by lawyers in total conformity with the law. The media pitch was therefore unwarranted and ancillary to the transaction.