Paul Njoroge Waweru v National Land Commission & 3 Others
The bottom line
#A Machakos court ordered Kenya's National Land Commission to pay a landowner Kshs 11.7 million for compulsorily acquired land, rejecting a higher earlier award lacking valuation evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What is the amount that the plaintiff is entitled to as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of 0.121 Ha of land along Mombasa Road?
Key legal issues
#Amount payable as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of 0.121 Ha of LR. No. 12648/119
Plaintiff entitled to the EACC-verified sum of Kshs. 11,700,991.25, not the earlier award of Kshs. 16,858,586
Section 107 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the plaintiff to justify the earlier award. The award of 1st February 2019 included Kshs. 2,700,000 for improvements although NLC's own documents showed no improvements existed, rendering it irregular. The EACC revision was found legitimate and protective of the public treasury.
Liability of the 2nd and 3rd defendants
2nd and 3rd defendants liable for costs
The 3rd defendant entered the suit property in 2017 before requesting acquisition as required under Section 107 of the Land Act; the 2nd defendant received the compensation sum on 30th June 2020 but failed to forward it to the plaintiff.
Liability of the 1st defendant
No liability
The 1st defendant was merely the road designer with no mandate over beacons, advertising or compensation for compulsory acquisition.
Legal principles established
#- Compulsory acquisition can only be done where there is prompt, full and just compensation
- The burden lies on the landowner to demonstrate that a revised valuation does not amount to full and just compensation; the law does not envisage the owner's participation in valuation
- An unexplained earlier award unsupported by valuation will not be upheld against a later EACC-verified award
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff forthwith, the sum of Kshs. 11,700,991.25, plus interest thereon at court rates from the date of filing this suit
- 2.The costs of the suit shall be borne by the 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally
- 3.The suit against the 1st defendant is dismissed with costs to him
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction (Environment and Land Court Act); constitutional provisions on compulsory acquisition under Article 40(3) and (4) of the Constitution considered
Relief refused
#Payment of the earlier award of Kshs. 16,858,586 as compensation
Plaintiff failed to prove the basis of the earlier award or that the EACC-verified award was an under-valuation
Interest at 18% as sought by the plaintiff
Court awarded interest at court rates instead
Claim against the 1st defendant
No cause of action demonstrated against the 1st defendant who was merely the designer of the road
Costs
The costs of the suit shall be borne by the 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally; the suit against the 1st defendant dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a. The 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff forthwith, the sum of Kshs. 11,700,991.25, plus interest thereon at court rates from the date of filing this suit.
The costs of the suit shall be borne by the 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally.
Therefore, compulsory acquisition can only be done where there is prompt, full and just compensation.
the award of 1st February 2019 grants him Kshs. 2,700,000/- for developments, which in my view is irregular, unlawful, unjustified and a brazen looting of public coffers facilitated by the National Land Commission.
Therefore, the suit against the 1st defendant is dismissed with costs to him.
Issues in the judgment
#The 3rd defendant's submissions refer to a letter dated 22nd February 2012 while the evidence refers to a master schedule in a letter dated 22nd February 2021; likely a typographical error
The 3rd defendant's chronological account of forwarding compensation is internally inconsistent, placing the revised schedule of 22nd February 2021 before its letter of 30th June 2020 transmitting the revised amounts
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Njoroge Waweru v National Land Commission & 3 Others", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment ( plaint dated 30th August 2017 ). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6913/eng@2024-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.