Latest News
Court Orders KSh34 Million Payment After KSh128 Million James Gichuru-Rironi Award
A Nairobi court has ordered payment of KSh34.45 million owed to a landowner, five years after authorities partially settled his compulsory acquisition award.
Chege Wainaina accepted a KSh128 million compensation award in 2020 but received only KSh94 million.
Justice Grace Kemei has now ordered the authorities to settle the remaining KSh34.45 million within 90 days.
The judge also awarded interest at 14 per cent until payment is completed.
The judgement ends a lengthy dispute surrounding land acquired for the James Gichuru-Rironi road expansion.
It also delivers a pointed reminder about the government’s constitutional obligation to compensate landowners promptly.
The Road Project
The dispute began when authorities targeted part of Wainaina’s Dagoreti/Kinoo/4732 property for road expansion.
The acquired portion measured approximately 0.0205 hectares, according to evidence presented during the hearing.
The National Land Commission (NLC) awarded Wainaina KSh128,492,580 on July 23, 2020.
He subsequently received KSh94,038,915, leaving KSh34,453,665 outstanding from the original award.
The unpaid balance became the heart of Wainaina’s lawsuit against two government agencies.
The agencies did not dispute owing the money but blamed funding constraints for the prolonged delay.
KeNHA said budgetary limitations had prevented it from forwarding the outstanding funds.
NLC similarly maintained that its payment depended upon receiving funds.
That explanation, however, ultimately failed to persuade the court that payment could remain indefinitely postponed.
The litigation itself had already survived several procedural challenges before reaching final judgement.
In September 2024, the court rejected an objection that Wainaina’s case belonged before the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
Justice David Mwangi found that Wainaina was pursuing an overdue payment, rather than appealing the original award.
A year later, however, Justice Kemei rejected Wainaina’s application for an interim injunction.
The court found that he had not established the requirements necessary for temporary injunctive relief.
That ruling allowed the substantive compensation dispute to proceed toward final determination.
Five Years Waiting
The final judgement turned heavily on constitutional protection of property rights during compulsory acquisition.
Article 40 requires compulsory acquisition to involve prompt payment in full of just compensation.
Justice Kemei distilled that obligation into three words: “prompt”, “full” and “just”.
The Land Act reinforces that requirement by demanding prompt payment after compensation awards are made.
The legislation also defines prompt payment as occurring within a reasonable period.
In specified circumstances, that period cannot extend beyond one year following the Commission taking possession.
Wainaina’s case presented an uncomfortable contrast with that statutory framework.
The first payment arrived in October 2020, while the balance remained unpaid beyond five years.
The authorities had not yet taken possession of the acquired portion, creating an unusual legal situation.
Nevertheless, Justice Kemei found that Wainaina remained entitled to the outstanding compensation.
The judge also held that interest could not justify leaving the underlying debt unresolved indefinitely.
That finding became the decisive moment in the case.
The Rent Claim
Wainaina had pursued considerably more than the unpaid acquisition award.
He claimed KSh35.389 million in lost rental income from residential and commercial premises.
The building reportedly generated substantial monthly income before tenants began leaving.
Wainaina attributed their departure to demolition notices or markings connected with the road project.
He told the court that rental income had fallen by approximately KSh823,000 monthly.
That claim, however, encountered a much tougher evidentiary test than the compensation dispute.
Wainaina produced no tenancy agreements establishing the alleged rental arrangements.
He also failed to provide termination notices showing why individual tenants supposedly vacated.
There was another significant weakness buried within his evidence before the court.
A letter demanding payment from KeNHA did not include any claim for lost rental income.
The judge therefore treated the rental claim as special damages requiring strict proof.
Without supporting documents, the court said it could not safely award the claimed KSh35.389 million.
The distinction proved crucial because the compensation debt was admitted, while the rental losses remained contested.
The Final Blow
The court also rejected Wainaina’s demand for general and exemplary damages.
Justice Kemei found no evidence that the authorities had acted oppressively or arbitrarily.
The acquisition served a recognised public purpose through expansion of the public road network.
The judge consequently found no basis for imposing exemplary damages against the respondents.
Yet the court gave Wainaina a substantial victory on the central financial dispute.
The defendants were barred from taking possession or interfering with the property before clearing the outstanding award.
The National Land Commission was also restrained from vesting the property in KeNHA before full settlement.
Most significantly, the authorities received 90 days to pay the KSh34.45 million balance.
The amount must carry interest at 14 per cent until payment is made in full.
KeNHA was additionally ordered to shoulder Wainaina’s costs for bringing the case.
The judgement therefore leaves both sides with important lessons from the protracted dispute.
For Wainaina, the court secured money that the authorities had already acknowledged owing him.
For the government agencies, the ruling underscores the limits of budgetary explanations.
A compensation award cannot simply become an open-ended promise because public funds arrive slowly.
At the same time, the judgement demonstrates another hard courtroom truth about financial claims.
Where millions are claimed as consequential losses, allegations must ultimately be matched by convincing documentary evidence.
Wainaina won the money everyone agreed he was owed, but not money he could not prove.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.