Mathare Landowner Demands KSh64.4 Million Over Safaricom Base Station

A court has blocked Stephen Mbogo Njue’s attempt to move his long-running Mathare land dispute against Safaricom to the Environment and Land Court.

A Mathare land dispute involving Safaricom has hit another legal hurdle after a Nairobi court rejected transfer proceedings.

The Environment and Land Court dismissed Stephen Mbogo Njue’s bid to move his case from a magistrate.

Njue had asked the court to take over proceedings pending before the Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court.

He argued that his compensation claim had grown beyond the magistrate’s pecuniary jurisdiction.

Justice Charles Mbogo dismissed the application on September 3, 2026, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved.

At the centre are two Mathare North plots, identified as numbers 237A and 234A.

Njue claims Safaricom erected a Base Transceiver Station on the disputed properties.

He wants the telecommunications company to remove the installation from his land.

He is also seeking payment for alleged occupation dating back to August 2012.

That claim has now grown into a KSh64.4 million demand, according to his calculations.

The KSh64.4 Million Claim

Njue says the two properties could each command KSh200,000 monthly in rental value.

Together, he places their combined monthly rental value at KSh400,000.

He calculated mesne profits from August 2012 to December 2025 using that valuation.

The resulting figure stood at approximately KSh64.4 million, with further amounts allegedly continuing to accrue.

The claim stems from Njue’s assertion that Safaricom has occupied his properties unlawfully.

But before those allegations can be fully tested, the courts must first determine where proceedings belong.

That procedural question became the immediate battleground between Njue and the telecommunications giant.

Njue originally filed the case on July 19, 2022, before the magistrate’s court.

His plaint did not initially attach a specific monetary figure to the rental claim.

Instead, he sought removal of Safaricom’s station and payment of rent until determination.

He also sought costs, interest at 25 per cent, and any other relief considered appropriate.

The court found that the magistrate’s court possessed jurisdiction when Njue filed the original case.

However, Njue later argued that continuing accruals had fundamentally changed the financial scale involved.

He therefore asked the Environment and Land Court to transfer the proceedings.

He also sought permission to amend his plaint to quantify the accumulated mesne profits.

The proposed amendments would additionally update Safaricom’s corporate name and incorporate assigned rights.

Njue argued that those changes would clarify the dispute without changing its essential character.

Jurisdiction Fight

Safaricom opposed the application, arguing that jurisdiction is determined when proceedings begin.

The company maintained that subsequent developments cannot retrospectively change a court’s jurisdiction.

It further argued that Njue was restructuring his claim to push it beyond the magistrate’s monetary limits.

Safaricom also described the application as delayed and an attempt at forum shopping.

The Environment and Land Court consequently had to confront a narrow but important legal question.

Could a later increase in a claim justify transferring an existing suit between courts?

Justice Mbogo’s answer was unequivocal: the transfer could not legally cure the problem.

The judge noted that designated magistrates can hear environment and land disputes within statutory limits.

The court also examined Njue’s original plaint, filed when the claim remained unquantified.

At that stage, the principal relief concerned removal of Safaricom’s telecommunications infrastructure.

The financial claim had not been broken down into the figure Njue now relies upon.

That distinction became critical because jurisdiction must exist when proceedings are instituted.

The judge relied on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Phoenix of EA Company Limited v Thiga.

That case established that jurisdiction is fundamental and must exist from the outset.

A court cannot acquire jurisdiction simply because circumstances later change.

Nor can procedural amendments retrospectively create jurisdiction where it did not previously exist.

The principle effectively shut down Njue’s attempt to transfer the existing proceedings.

Fresh Case Ahead?

The ruling does not determine whether Safaricom unlawfully occupied Njue’s Mathare properties.

It also does not establish whether the company owes Njue the claimed KSh64.4 million.

Likewise, the court did not decide whether Safaricom’s Base Transceiver Station must ultimately be removed.

Those questions remain part of the unresolved substantive dispute between the parties.

For now, however, Njue cannot move the existing proceedings into the Environment and Land Court.

Justice Mbogo said the court could not use transfer proceedings to remedy the jurisdictional issue.

If Njue considers the existing claim unsuitable for the magistrate’s court, another route remains open.

The judge indicated that Njue could withdraw the existing proceedings and file a fresh claim.

That would place the substantive dispute before a court possessing the necessary jurisdiction.

The ruling therefore closes one procedural door without ending the wider land dispute.

It also leaves the KSh64.4 million figure precisely where it stands today.

It remains Njue’s claimed compensation, rather than a debt established against Safaricom.

READ ALSO: Safaricom Wins Court Battle Against KSh1.2 Million-a-Month Manager Fired Over Data Allegations

For Safaricom, the ruling means the existing case stays outside the Environment and Land Court.

For Njue, it creates another legal hurdle before his compensation claim can face substantive determination.

The Mathare land dispute therefore continues, with the central financial questions still unanswered.

And until those questions are heard, the KSh64.4 million demand remains only an assertion.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.