[2012] KEHC 1284 (KLR)
The court found that the parties had agreed to a government valuation for compensation purposes, but the government valuer produced two conflicting reports. The second report, which valued only the house as intended by the consent, was deemed more appropriate. The court ordered payment of Kshs. 1,800,000 to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1284 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Plister Obara Okumu; Defendant: Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 83 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judgment Following Valuation Dispute
- Outcome
- application partially allowed; judgment entered for Kshs. 1,800,000 with further valuation ordered
- Legal Topics
- Compulsory Acquisition, Compensation Valuation, Consent Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Plister Obara Okumu
Plaintiff
Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judgment Following Valuation Dispute
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should enter judgment for the plaintiff based on the first or second government valuation report.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the property affected by the defendant's actions.
- 3 Whether a further independent valuation is necessary to determine just compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the parties had agreed to a government valuation for compensation purposes, but the government valuer produced two conflicting reports. The second report, which valued only the house as intended by the consent, was deemed more appropriate. The court ordered payment of Kshs. 1,800,000 to the plaintiff as per the second report, but also directed that a further independent valuation be conducted by a different government valuer to determine if additional compensation was warranted. The court balanced the need for finality with the requirement for fairness and accuracy in compensation, ensuring both parties shared the costs of the new valuation and bore their own legal...
Court Disposition
application partially allowed; judgment entered for Kshs. 1,800,000 with further valuation ordered
Orders
- The sum of Kshs. 1,800,000 as per the second valuation report to be paid directly to the plaintiff within fourteen (14) days.
- A valuation report to be undertaken by a separate government valuer to ascertain if further compensation is due, report to be filed within thirty (30) days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kisumu
Civil Suit 83 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
14. 00
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
PLISTER OBARA OKUMU...........................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISION CO LTD........................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
On 28th June 2012 the parties entered the following consent:-
(1)That the government valuer proceed and value the building and the valuation report the cost thereof be met by both parties on a 50: 50 basis.
(2)That the valuation be undertaken within fourteen (14) days from today.
(3)The parties to take appropriate mention date at Registry.
Subsequently a valuation was done which apparently produced two reports. The first one dated 9th July 2012 estimates the plinth area to be 1200ft2 approximately and the estimate value to be Kshs. 2,900,000
The 2nd report on the other hand withdraws the 1st report and according to it the plinth area is estimated at 800ft2 approximately and the value placed at Kshs. 1,800,000.
The plaintiff application dated 29th August 2012 prays that this court effects the Order of 3rd July 2012 by entering Judgment in her favour for the sum of Kshs. 2,900,000 and the defendant be ordered to settle the same. It is supported by the plaintiffs affidavit sworn on 12th September 2012.
The defendant has vehemently opposed the same vide the affidavit of one Antony Mbunya Kiarahu sworn on 5th October 2012. According to the defendant the proper report to be relied upon is the second one as it supercedes the first valuation report.
I have carefully listen to the oral submissions by the parties as well as the affidavit evidence on record. What is not in dispute is that the parties agreed to have a valuation done on the plaintiff property for purposes of being compensated.
The valuation was done by the same government valuer who unfortunately gave two (2) versions of the report. The second one was acceptable to the defendant as the 1st one valued the land and not the house as envisaged by the consent.
The valuer who was present in court confirmed that indeed power lines had already been laid over the house. This of course makes the application more urgent.
This being the case therefore and taking into totality the parties submission I order that:-
(a)The sum of Kshs. 1,800,000 which is indicated in the 2nd valuation report be paid directly to the plaintiff within fourteen (14) days from the date herein.
(b)A valuation report be undertaken by a separate government valuer so as to ascertain whether or not the plaintiff should be compensated further if any and the report be filed within the next thirty (30) days from the delivery of this Ruling.
(c )The parties shall further pay on equal basis the costs of this 3rd valuation
(d)Parties shall take an appropriate mention date once the valuation is filed.
(e)Each party shall bear their own costs
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 31st day of October 2012.
H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ojuro for P. J. Otieno for the Plaintiff
Ashitiva for the defendant
HKC/aao