Puzzle Over Tycoon’s Beachfront Estate As Daughters Claim Ownership

A complex inheritance battle has erupted over a prime 53-acre beachfront estate in Msambweni, Kwale County, with multiple parties claiming ownership of the valuable coastal property left by the late billionaire businessman Pritam Singh Panesar.

The dispute has evolved into a multi-layered legal puzzle involving disputed title deeds, alleged document forgery, and the sudden emergence of two women claiming to be the tycoon’s daughters.

The controversy centers around city lawyer Guy Spencer Elms and accountant Nileshkumar Mohanlal Shah, who initially presented what they claimed was a legitimate title deed for the sprawling beachfront property.

However, their ownership claim faced immediate scrutiny from the Ministry of Lands, which revoked their documentation in 2024, citing serious irregularities in the property registration process.

The ministry’s action was temporarily halted by a January court order, allowing the legal contest to continue while the matter undergoes judicial review.

The case took an unexpected turn when two women identifying themselves as Tanmeet Kaur Panesar and Jasmeet Kaur Panesar stepped forward through a public notice published in local media, introducing themselves as the late tycoon’s daughters and claiming to be the ultimate beneficiaries of his estate.

In their statement, the sisters defended Spencer and Shah as legitimate executors acting purely on their instructions, insisting the pair had “no beneficial interest” in their late father’s property in Kwale’s Msambweni area.

However, this defense creates additional complications, as the names of Tanmeet and Jasmeet do not appear anywhere in the will that Spencer and Shah deposited in court.

Their sudden emergence in the public domain has raised fundamental questions about the true structure of Panesar’s estate and the identity of his legitimate heirs. Legal observers note that their absence from the original will documentation presents significant challenges to their claims of inheritance.

Forgery claims

The legitimacy of the entire succession process came under serious question when the Directorate of Criminal Investigations forensic unit became involved in analyzing the disputed documentation.

DCI forensic document examiner Alex Mwongera conducted detailed analysis comparing signatures on the contested will against those on Panesar’s national identity card.

The forensic investigation concluded that the signatures did not match, suggesting potential document manipulation or forgery.

Central to the legal dispute is gazette notice number 14724, dated November 8, 2024, and signed by Kwale Land Registrar SN Mokaya.

The registrar officially degazetted the title deed that had been issued to Spencer and Shah on July 28, 2023, ruling that it had been unlawfully procured.

The gazette notice affirmed that the only valid title deed remained the original one issued to Panesar on July 9, 2009, more than a decade before his death in July 2018.

Speaking to a local daily, Land Registrar Mokaya confirmed the nullification of the disputed document, stating that “the duo misrepresented facts and when we noticed, we initiated the degazettement.”

He explained that while their title remains technically valid due to the court injunction preventing final degazettement, the proper procedure would have required the first title to be surrendered for cancellation before any new title could be issued.

The gazette notice directed Spencer and Shah to surrender their disputed title within 60 days.

When they failed to comply with this directive, the registrar declared the 2023 title “cancelled, of no effect, and null and void.”

This administrative action effectively stripped them of any legal claim to the beachfront estate, though the court injunction continues to prevent final resolution of the matter.

The complexity of the case deepened further with the involvement of three additional claimants: Mohammed Ruwa Maridadi, Anthony Michael Mwanza Mulwa, and Ahmed Ouma Randa.

These men have mounted their own legal challenge for the prime beachfront parcel, claiming to have acquired rights over the property through adverse possession after living on the land for over twelve years.

They requested that the title be transferred into their names based on their extended occupation of the property.

However, their claim was quashed in court after Spencer and Shah successfully applied to set it aside, arguing that as the duly appointed executors and trustees of the estate, they should have been joined in the original adverse possession case.

This legal victory provided temporary relief for Spencer and Shah, though it did not resolve the fundamental questions about the authenticity of their appointment as executors.

The late Pritam Singh Panesar, who died in July 2018, left behind a vast business empire stretching from Nairobi to the Coast.

His fortune has become the center of multiple legal battles, with various parties claiming different portions of his estate.

The beachfront property in Msambweni represents one of the most valuable assets in his portfolio, making it a particularly contentious piece in the overall succession puzzle.

Legal experts following the case have noted the unprecedented nature of the dispute, which combines elements of property law, succession planning, document authentication, and criminal investigation.

The involvement of forensic analysis in determining the authenticity of crucial documents represents a significant development in Kenyan property law, potentially setting new precedents for how similar disputes are resolved.

The daughters’ public statement claiming that the will has never been challenged directly contradicts court filings and forensic reports that clearly document ongoing disputes over its authenticity.

This discrepancy has raised additional questions about their understanding of the legal proceedings or their access to accurate information about the case’s status.

The case highlights broader systemic issues within Kenya’s land registration system, particularly regarding the verification of property transfers and the prevention of fraudulent documentation.

The ability of parties to obtain seemingly legitimate title deeds through questionable means has exposed vulnerabilities that could affect property rights across the country.

As the legal battle continues, all parties await resolution through the judicial system.

The outcome will likely establish important precedents for property inheritance disputes in Kenya and could influence how succession matters involving high-value coastal real estate are handled in the future.

The beachfront estate remains under legal protection while the various claims are adjudicated, ensuring that this valuable piece of coastal property cannot be sold or developed until clear ownership is established.

The Panesar succession battle appears far from resolution, with each new development adding layers of complexity to what has become one of the most closely watched inheritance disputes in recent Kenyan legal history.

The final determination of rightful ownership will require careful judicial consideration of forensic evidence, document authenticity, and the legitimate claims of all parties involved in this intricate legal puzzle.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​