Wanjohi v National Land Commission (Tribunal Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KELAT 18 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Judgment)

Wanjohi v National Land Commission (Tribunal Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KELAT 18 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KELAT 18 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Land Acquisition Tribunal Tribunal Case E010 of 2026 NM Orina, Chair, G Supeyo & Ruth Okal, Members April 23, 2026 Between Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi Claimant and The National Land Commission Respondent Judgment Background 1.This matter relates to the compulsory acquisition of a portion of property known as Land Reference No. 209/11460 situated in Nairobi County, measuring approximately 0.3164 hectares (the suit property). Through a claim dated 5 March 2026, the Claimant avers that he is the registered proprietor of the suit property and that he has held title to the suit property since 1 August 1991. He also asserts that he has been in open, continuous, and peaceful possession and use thereof, without any competing claims. 2.It is the Claimant’s case that on 18 December 2015, the Government of Kenya, through the Respondent, published a Gazette Notice expressing its intention to compulsorily acquire a portion of the suit property measuring approximately 0.2173 hectares for purposes of constructing the Hospital Road-Mbagathi Way Link Road, on behalf of the Kenya Urban Roads Authority as the acquiring body. 3.The Claimant further avers that following the said notice, the Respondent issued a subsequent Gazette Notice dated 12 August 2016 calling for an inquiry hearing, which was held on 30 August 2016. It is further the Claimant’s case that he duly attended the said inquiry and presented his claim for compensation. 4.The Claimant avers that in order to ascertain the value of the acquired portion, he commissioned an independent valuation by Kahuthia Kibui & Company, which assessed the value at Kshs. 538,200,000.00. The Claimant, however, avers that the Respondent assessed and awarded compensation in the sum of Kshs. 302,450,000.00 which he accepted despite being lower than his own valuation. He avers that he subsequently furnished the Respondent with his bank account details to facilitate payment of compensation. 5.It is the Claimant’s case that notwithstanding his acceptance of the award, the Respondent has failed, refused, and/or neglected to compensate him to date. He contends that he has made several follow-ups regarding the delayed compensation, including correspondence in February 2017 and July 2023. It is the Claimant’s case that despite the lapse of several years since the acquisition, the Respondent has failed to make payment, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to prompt and just compensation. 6.The Claimant avers that as a result of the Respondent’s failure to compensate him, he has suffered loss of use of the property, loss of income, and accrued interest on the unpaid compensation. He, therefore, seeks the following orders from this tribunal:a.A declaration that he is the bonafide proprietor and legally registered owner of all that parcels of land known as Land Reference No. 209/11460 and therefore entitled to compensation in accordance with the law.b.An order directing the Respondent to forthwith issue compensation award (sic) of Kshs. 302, 450, 000.00/= and make payment to the claimant in relation to the compulsorily acquired portion of LR No. 209/11460 being the registered and lawful owner thereof within 14 days from the date of the declaration.c.An order directing the Respondent to forthwith pay the Claimant accrued interest at the then prevailing Central Bank base lending rate of 13.00% from the dates of acquisition until payment in full and as tabulated by this Honourable Tribunal.d.General damages for trespass and mesne profits.e.Costs of the suit plus interest.f.Any other order as this Honorable Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate to grant. 7.The Respondent opposed the Claim vide a Statement of Response dated 30 March 2026, wherein it denied the Claimant’s assertions and set out its position regarding the acquisition process. Chiefly, the Respondent denies the Claimant’s assertions regarding ownership and entitlement to compensation. It states that it lawfully undertook the compulsory acquisition process in accordance with the Constitution and all applicable statutory requirements through publication of a Notice of Intention to Acquire vide Kenya Gazette Notice No. 9340 dated 18 December 2015 for the acquisition of a portion of the suit property measuring 0.2173 hectares. This was for the construction of the Hospital Road-Mbagathi Way Link Road. 8.It is further the Respondent’s case that a Notice of Inquiry was subsequently issued vide Gazette Notice No. 6441 dated 12 August 2016, and that inquiry hearings were conducted on 30 August 2016. The Respondent avers that during the inquiry process, it emerged that the suit property had been referenced in the Commission of Inquiry into Illegal/Irregular Allocation of Public Land (2004) – The “Ndung’u Report”. The Respondent, therefore, avers that this necessitated further investigations to ascertain the legality of the Claimant’s title and proprietorship before any compensation could be processed. 9.It is the Respondent’s case that although valuation of the suit property was undertaken, no award could issue to the Claimant pending the conclusion of the said investigations. It avers that it has at all times acted within the confines of the law governing compulsory acquisition. 10.The Respondent denies that the Claimant has suffered any loss as alleged and further denies that the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including compensation, interest, or damages. Accordingly, the Respondent avers that the Claimant’s claim is unmerited and ought to be dismissed with costs. B. Analysis and Determination 11.The factual background underpinning this dispute is not contested. It is not contested that the Respondent undertook compulsory acquisition of a portion of Land Reference No. 209/11460 which is registered in the name of the Claimant. It is also not contested that the Respondent valued the portion acquired at Kshs. 302,450,000.00. It is, however, not clear if an award in this respect was issued to the Claimant. According to the Respondent, an award could not be issued to the Claimant before some investigations were completed. What is not in contention and the substratum of the dispute is that the Claimant has not been compensated for the compulsory acquisition of a portion of the suit property necessitating this suit. 12.The undisputed facts dispense with the first issue identified by the Claimant on whether the Claimant’s suit property was acquired. The Claimant has also asked us to determine whether he is entitled to compensation. This issue is also tied to the issue of what the legal effect of the Ndung’u report is. On its part, the Respondent has invited us to determine whether the Claimant has demonstrated a lawful and indefeasible title to the suit property and whether the compulsory acquisition process over the suit property is completed. 13.Before we determine whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, it is important to reiterate the process of compulsory acquisition from the point of inquiry which is the point of contention. The inquiry stage is one of the important procedural stages during an acquisition. It is at this stage where the Respondent determines the persons interested in the acquisition and their interests. This process culminates in the issuance of awards of compensation. As reasoned by this Tribunal in Mgambo El Hassan vs. National land Commission (TRLAP/E068/2025):23.This inquiry process forms the basis for determining the proper party to be compensated in relation to the subject acquisition process. As noted in the locus classicus case of Patrick Musimba vs. National Land Commission & 4 others [2016] eKLR, it determines the persons interested and who are to be compensated. Section 112 (3) (a) of the Land Act accordingly provides that the Commission shall make full inquiry and determine who are the persons interested in the land.23.To this end, Section 112 (5) of the Land Act provides that the Commission “… shall have all the powers of the Court to summon and examine witnesses, including the persons interested in the land, to administer oaths and affirmations and to compel the production and delivery to the Commission of documents of title to the land.”24.The result of this process therefore ought to be a determination of the interests to then form the basis of an award of compensation as provided under Section 113 of the Land Act. 14.In undertaking the critical role under Section 112(5), the Respondent exercises all the powers of a Court in summoning witnesses and requiring the production of documents of title to land. This is to ensure that the Respondent arrives at a judicious decision on who is entitled to compensation and to what extent. Further, the Respondent is under a duty pursuant to Article 47(1) to uphold expeditiousness, efficiency, lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness to every affected party. This Tribunal has had occasion to underscore these tenets in Mgambo El Hassan as follows:23.Even though the Respondent is under a duty to withhold making any award in case of a dispute… doing so while taking no step to resolve any dispute over ownership is a serious dereliction of its legal mandate. As it stands, the Respondent is yet to complete the inquiry as envisioned in the Land Act. … This, in our view, is a violation of the Claimant’s rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act…. 15.This is yet another case where the Respondent seems to admit that it has abdicated its duty to conduct an inquiry to conclusion as required under the Land Act. The admission by the Respondent that the compulsory acquisition process over the suit property has not been completed is startling. The Respondent admits to not having completed a process it commenced more than 10 years ago yet it has not availed any evidence of any steps it has undertaken to impeach the Claimant’s title to the suit property. In other words, the Respondent has taken the excerpt from the Ndung’u Report as the reason not to undertake its statutory mandate to determine if the Claimant’s claim to ownership is merited. On the contrary, the Respondent has urged us to make a finding that the Claimant has not demonstrated a lawful and indefeasible title to the suit property.Effectively shifting the burden. 16.We are reminded that even though a certificate of title can be impeached, the same is recognised under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act as a prima facie evidence of ownership. The Respondent has not demonstrated that in its inquiry it has undertaken steps to impeach the Claimant’s title. It is also legally settled that such an impeachment can only be done by a court with the requisite jurisdiction. The Respondent has had more than 10 years to commence a process to impeach the Claimant’s title but it has not done so. 17.Equally, we are not convinced that the Ndung’u report by itself contains conclusive determination of the validity of the Claimant’s title. As held by the superior courts, the Ndung’u land report recommendations are merely that and it is upon the relevant bodies to take up the recommendations before the right forum for adjudication before a decision is made. [See, Geoffrey Kirimi Itania v. Chief Land Registrar & 3 Others [2018] KEELC 2543 (KLR)]. In our view, the Claimant’s claim to the suit property has not been defeated by a legally recognised process. He remains the legally recognised owner of the suit property and is hence entitled to compensation for the acquisition of a portion of it. 18.The upshot of the above analysis is that the Respondent has violated the Claimants right to property under Article 40(3) and right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) & (2) for failure to pay compensation for the portion of the suit property acquired without any reason. We also note that via letter dated 15 February 2017 addressed to the Claimant, the acquiring authority confirms that it is in possession of the affected portion of the suit property as the project had been commenced and was underway. 19.In conclusion, we hereby find that the Claimant’s case has succeeded with the appropriate orders being as follows:a.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent has violated the Claimant’s rights to property under Article 40(3) and the right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) & (2);b.An order be and is hereby issued directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant the sum of Kshs. 302,450,000.00 being the assessed value of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a portion of Land Reference No. 209/11460;c.An order be and is hereby issued directing the Respondent to pay interest on the sum of Kshs. 302,450,000.00 at the base lending set by the Central Bank of Kenya from 30 August 2016 until payment in full;d.General damages for violation of rights assessed at Kshs. 3,000,000.00e.The Claimant shall be paid costs of this suit DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2026DR. NABIL M. ORINA - CHAIRPERSON GEORGE SUPEYO - MEMBER RUTH OKAL - MEMBERIn the presence of:Mr. Kioko H/b For Ms. Mwende For The ClaimantMs. Kemunto Hb For Mr. Osoro For The RespondentLucy – Court Assistant