George Wachiuri built his business portfolio as a motivational speaker, but the same words that people trusted when the invested with Optiven Group where he is the chief executive officer and founder have now come under scrutiny after an investor moved to Kiambu High Court claiming Mr. Wachiuri is involvedin deceptive marketing, fraud and misrepresenation.
For reference and context, this is not the first time Mr. Wachiuri is dragged in court over deception , misrepresenation and fraud. Few years ago, he was forced to refund to investors Sh 200 millions after his business partner under Kilimo Tujijenge project scammed investors in fake greenhouses investments.
This is after a land buyer moved to court seeking to have Optiven Limited stopped from deducting money from customers’ deposits using clauses contained in unsigned agreements for sale.
Peter Mulati Nabiswa has filed the suit on his own behalf and as a representative of hundreds, and potentially thousands, of customers whom he says were subjected to a similar practice by the real estate company.
The plaintiff claims Optiven collected deposits from prospective buyers, sent them unsigned draft sale agreements for review and later treated the drafts as binding contracts when customers failed to complete payments.
He wants the court to declare that such agreements are unenforceable against buyers who never signed and had them attested by an advocate.
His case stems from his purchase attempt for Plot No. VN33 in Vuyanzi Gardens. According to court documents, Optiven’s legal counsel sent him the draft agreement on May 9, 2024, asking him to review it and only sign it if he had no comments.
Nabiswa says he never signed or had the document attested but paid Sh600,000 towards the proposed purchase.
In March 2026, he says Optiven demanded an outstanding Sh1.63 million and threatened that continued non-payment could lead to “enforcement of the terms of the Sale Agreement, including but not limited to repossession.”
The company later informed him that his plot had been “dropped due to a prolonged non-payment activity which led to a breach of agreement by the Purchaser.”
Optiven offered to refund his Sh600,000 but proposed deducting Sh219,500 as a “10% Admin Cost”, citing Clause 10 of the sale agreement.
Nabiswa challenged the deduction, saying he had never signed an agreement providing for administrative charges.
He says the company subsequently gave a different explanation, claiming the deduction applied where refunds were below 75 per cent of total payments. It also offered to waive the deduction if he redirected his money to purchase two plots in Malindi Phase 7.
Nabiswa rejected the proposal and eventually recovered the full Sh600,000 through a consent order issued by the Milimani Small Claims Court in July.
However, he says the settlement only resolved his individual claim and did not bar the representative proceedings.
The plaintiff alleges Optiven’s conduct amounts to false or misleading representation, unconscionable conduct, unjust enrichment and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.
He wants the court to order restitution of all money deducted from affected customers, award damages and permanently restrain Optiven from relying on unsigned agreements to withhold refunds.
“The practice I experienced collecting deposits, transmitting unsigned draft agreements, then later relying on clauses in those unsigned agreements to justify deductions is not unique to my case,” Nabiswa states.
He further claims Optiven’s records, including refund committee documents, could reveal the number of customers affected.
The suit asks the High Court to certify the representative proceedings and grant relief to all qualifying customers.
