Wambugu & another (Suing as an Administrator and on Behalf of the Estate of Bishop Baptist Mugecha Karume - Deceased) v National Land Commission (Claim E017 of 2026) [2026] KELAT 20 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Judgment)

Wambugu & another (Suing as an Administrator and on Behalf of the Estate of Bishop Baptist Mugecha Karume - Deceased) v National Land Commission (Claim E017 of 2026) [2026] KELAT 20 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KELAT 20 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Land Acquisition Tribunal Claim E017 of 2026 NM Orina, Chair, G Supeyo & Ruth Okal, Members April 23, 2026 Between David Ndiangui Wambugu 1st Claimant Fredrick Emmanuel Karume Mugecha 2nd Claimant Suing as an Administrator and on Behalf of the Estate of Bishop Baptist Mugecha Karume - Deceased and National Land Commission Respondent Judgment A. Background 1.In a claim dated 31 March 2026, the 1st Claimant and the estate of the late Bishop Baptist Mugecha Karume (deceased) are described as the registered proprietors in common (with equal shares) of all that parcel of land known as Land Reference No. MN/VI/4749 measuring approximately 3.970 and situated in Mombasa County (the suit property). The 2nd Claimant is described as one of the administrators of the estate of the late Bishop Baptist Mugecha Karume (deceased). The Claimants aver that vide Kenya Gazette Notice number 14037 of 11 November 2022, the Respondent while acting on behalf of Kenya Railways Corporation published an intention to acquire, through compulsory acquisition, a portion of the suit property measuring 2.529 hectares for the construction of Miritini MGR Station – Mombasa SGR Terminus MGR Link Project. 2.It is contended that this acquisition was followed by other statutory processes including inquiry hearings which were conducted on 13 and 14 April 2023 with the participation of the Claimants. They also aver that the acquisition process was completed and the construction of the aforesaid project was completed. They, however, claim that they haven’t been compensated. The Claimants further aver that the Respondent issued them with an award of compensation on 13 November 2025 for the sum of Kshs. 143,742,020.00 which was promptly accepted on 14 November 2025 but is yet to be paid. Consequently, the Claimants claim that they have been unlawfully and illegally deprived of their constitutional right to compensation following the acquisition of the suit property and pray for the following:a.A declaration that they are the bonafide proprietors and legally registered owners of the suit property;b.An order directing the Respondent to forthwith issue compensation award of Kshs. 143,742,020.00 and make payment to the Claimants in relation to the acquisition of the suit property within 14 days of the declaration;c.An order directing the Respondent to pay interest at the base lending rate of the Central Bank of Kenya of 13% from the dates of acquisition until payment in full;d.General damages for trespass and mesne profits;e.Costs. 3.In response, the Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Josiah Laibuni on 10 April 2026. Mr. Laibuni acknowledges the factual basis of this claim to the extent that the Respondent acquired a portion of the suit property through publication of a notice of intention to acquire on 11 November 2022 and subsequently publication of a notice of inquiry on 17 March 2023 and that inquiry hearings were conducted on 13 and 14 April 2023. The Respondent also acknowledges that it issued an award of compensation in favour of the Claimants on 13 November 2025. The Respondent avers that it has not occasioned any delay of compensation and prays for the dismissal of the claim. A. Analysis and Determination 4.The Claimants, through their submissions dated 15 April 2026, have urged us to consider two issues for determination being whether there was compulsory acquisition of a portion of the suit property measuring 2.5292; and whether the Claimant is entitled to orders sought in the claim. On its part, the Respondent filed submissions dated 17 April 2026 identifying the following issues for determination: whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation, interest and damages as pleaded. 5.In our view, the factual basis underlying this claim are uncontested to the extent that the property known as Land Reference No. MN/VI/4749 is registered in the name of the 1st Claimant and the late Bishop Baptist Mugecha Karume. This is demonstrated by a copy of the certificate of title in respect of the suit property and a copy of a certificate of postal search dated 27 October 2025. The evidence before us also demonstrates that a portion of the suit property measuring 2.529 hectares was acquired by the Respondent for the construction of Miritini MGR Station – Mombasa SGR Terminus MGR Link Project. The evidence before us also shows that an award of compensation was issued for the acquisition in November 2025. All these facts are uncontested between the parties. It is also not contested that the Claimants have not been compensated. This factual background disposes of the first issue identified by the Claimants. It is not in contest that a portion of the suit property was acquired by the Respondent. 6.On whether the Claimants are entitled to the prayers sought, the first prayer is for payment of the awarded compensation. The Respondent does not dispute that the Claimants are entitled to this compensation although it submits that such an obligation should not be placed on it if the necessary funds have not been remitted by the acquiring authority. The Respondent further submits that it has complied with the law in undertaking this process especially in regard to the inquiry process but does not seemto provide a sufficient explanation why the process has taken more than three years since a notice of intention to acquire was published to pay compensation. 7.The Constitution of Kenya requires that compensation be done promptly upon compulsory acquisition. Article 40 (3) (b) (i) provides as follows: -(3)The State shall not deprive a person of property of any description, or of any interest in, or right over, property of any description, unless the deprivation—(a )...b.is for a public purpose or in the public interest and is carried out in accordance with this Constitution and any Act of Parliament that—i.requires prompt payment in full, of just compensation to the person; andii.... 8.This Constitutional imperative is emphasized in Section 111 of the Land Act as follows: 1.If land is acquired compulsorily under this Act, just compensation shall be paid promptly in full to all persons whose interests in the land have been determined. …..(1B)(a)….(b)monetary payment either in lump sum or instalments spread over a period of not more than one year; 9.As we held in Wanjohi v National Land Commission & 2 others [2025] KELAT 22 (KLR), the legislature was deliberate in ensuring that the Constitutional requirement of prompt payment of compensation is enacted into the relevant statute. Prompt payment of compensation is necessary to alleviate the disruption occasioned on project affected persons whose properties have been taken compulsorily. It is, therefore, our finding that the Claimants are entitled to immediate payment of the compensation amount. 10.On whether the Claimants are entitled to interest, we are guided by Section 117(1) of the Land Act which provides that a project affected person shall be paid interest from the time of taking possession of their property until they are paid compensation. As we underscored in Mulu & 55 others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2025] KELAT 202 (KLR), possession is a factual aspect that must be proven by relevant evidence which may include a notice of taking possession or implicit acknowledgment of the taking of possession. It is evident from the evidence in this matter which has not been rebutted that the project was commenced and completed on the affected portion of the suit property. The Claimants are, therefore, entitled to accrued interest pursuant to Section 117(1) of the Land Act. 11.Finally, the Claimants have also prayed for general damages as well as mesne profits.We do not find any basis for awarding these damages in addition to the compensation they are entitled to. The Claimants have not pleaded or proved that the suit property was acquired illegally or that their rights to property have been violated. Further, it is our consideration that there has not been an unconscionable delay in the process as demonstrated by the Respondent. The Claimants were issued with an award of compensation in November 2025 after the process was completed. 12.In the end, we find that the Claim partly succeeds in the following terms:a.An order be and is hereby issued that the Claimants are entitled to immediate payment of compensation of the sum of Kshs. 143,742,020.00 for the acquisition of a portion of property known as Land Reference No. MN/VI/4749 measuring 2.529 hectares;b.That the above compensation shall be paid within a period of 30 days from the date hereof;c.Interest on the sum of Kshs. 143,742,020.00 shall accrue at the base lending rates set by the Central Bank of Kenya from 11 November 2022 until payment in full;d.There shall be no orders as to costs DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2026DR. NABIL M. ORINA - CHAIRPERSONGEORGE SUPEYO - MEMBERRUTH OKAL - MEMBERIn the presence of:Mr. Kioko H/b For Ms. Mwende For The Claimant MR. Osoro For The RespondentLucy – Court Assistant