Singh v Kenya Ports Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E027 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4912 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court clarified its own judgment, fixing interest on a compulsory acquisition compensation award at 12% per annum, calculated simply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the file should be placed before Justice L.L. Naikuni, then sitting in Kwale, to hear the application
- 2.Whether the Court's Judgment of 9th July 2025 contained an ambiguity/error apparent on the face of the record as to the rate of interest payable on the compensation award
- 3.Whether the interest on compensation should accrue at the prevailing market rate or the Court rate
- 4.Whether the 2nd Respondent, rather than the Court, is mandated to determine the interest payable as part of the compensation process
Key legal issues
#Whether the Judgment contained an ambiguity qualifying as an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review
Yes - the Judgment awarded interest on the compensation but did not clarify whether the rate was the prevailing market rate or the Court rate, making tabulation impossible
The Court found that the order of 9th July 2025 declared the Petitioner entitled to interest at 'the prevailing market interest rate or as such a rate as this Honourable Court shall deem just,' which was ambiguous. Since the order had neither been set aside nor varied, the Court could review it to specify the rate, and held the 1st Respondent's objection misconceived because the order arose from the Petitioner's own prayers.
Whether the determination of interest payable on compensation falls to the Court or to the 2nd Respondent under the Land Act
The Court retained jurisdiction; the order for interest arose from the Petitioner's prayers and had not been set aside or varied
The 1st Respondent argued that Sections 107, 111, 117 and 133 of the Land Act vest the determination of interest in the 2nd Respondent as part of the compulsory acquisition process, and that the application was an improper invitation for the Court to sit on appeal over its own judgment. The Court rejected this, holding that having heard the dispute it had determined the Petitioner's entitlement to interest and made an order to that effect which remained operative.
The applicable rate and mode of calculation of interest
12% per annum, calculated on a simple basis, from the date of filing suit until payment in full
The Court relied on Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Practice Directions No. 1 of 1982 by Simpson Ag. CJ fixing the rate at 12% absent valid reason for a higher or lower rate, and the Court of Appeal decisions in Kipchumba v BOG Tambach Teachers Training College and Barclays Bank (K) Limited v William Mwangi Nguruki, which held that interest at Court rates is calculated on a simple and not compounded basis. Paragraph 115 (g) of the Judgment was varied accordingly.
Whether the Court could direct that the file be placed before Justice Naikuni in Kwale
No - the Court lacked jurisdiction to reassign the file; application must be made to the Chief Justice
The Petitioner asked that the file be placed before Justice L.L. Naikuni, who delivered the Judgment of 9th July 2025, but who is currently sitting in Kwale. The Court held that reassignment of a file from Mombasa to Kwale is an administrative allocation of duties to Judges, vested in the Chief Justice under Articles 161 and 165 of the Constitution, and declined the invitation.
Legal principles established
#- In the absence of special or exceptional circumstances, the applicable rate of interest on an adjudged sum is 12% per annum, calculated on a simple rather than compounded basis, from the date of filing suit until payment in full
- Where a decree is silent on further interest, the Court is deemed to have ordered interest at 6% per annum under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, but the Court may in a decree order such rate of interest as it deems reasonable under Section 26(1)
- A judge who delivered a judgment retains jurisdiction to review it under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act where the applicant is aggrieved by a decree or order, and the review Court may make such order as it thinks fit
- Reassignment of a file from one court station to another is an administrative function of the Chief Justice under Articles 161 and 165 of the Constitution, not a matter a Court can effect on a party's invitation
Court orders
#- 1.Declined the request to place the file before Justice L.L. Naikuni sitting in Kwale
- 2.Varied paragraph 115 (g) of the Judgment delivered on 9th July 2025 to read that the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation award for the property known as LR No. MN/VI/2444 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until payment in full, calculated on a simple basis
- 3.Made no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Request that the file be placed before Justice L.L. Naikuni currently sitting in Kwale
The Court lacked jurisdiction to reassign the file from Mombasa to Kwale; such reassignment requires a formal application to the Chief Justice under Articles 161 and 165 of the Constitution
Costs
I make no order as to costs.
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.
Arising from the foregoing, paragraph 115 (g) of the Judgment delivered herein on 9th July 2025 is hereby varied to read that: 'A declaration be and is hereby made that the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation award for the property known as LR No. MN/VI/2444 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this suit until payment in full.'
I make no order as to costs.
it is my finding that the applicable rate of interest is 12% calculated on a simple basis.
Accordingly, I declined the invitation to place the file before the Learned Judge in Kwale to hear the application.
It is our finding that any interest due to the Respondent must be calculated on a simple interest and not on compounded basis
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling is delivered on 30th July 2026 in an application dated 17th September 2025 seeking review of a Judgment delivered on 9th July 2025 - the date of delivery post-dates the application by roughly a year, which may reflect a typographical error in the delivery date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Singh v Kenya Ports Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E027 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4912 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MSA. ELCPET. E027 OF 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4912/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.