Kenya National Highways Authority v Issa & 3 others (Civil Appeal 59 of 2019) [2025] KECA 213 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal cut a landowner's road-acquisition compensation from Kshs 7.7 million to Kshs 5,355,625, ruling that only the acquired portion must be paid for.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial court erred in awarding the 1st respondent compensation of Kshs 7,700,000 for the compulsory acquisition of a portion measuring 0.0096 ha out of land parcel LR No. 1692/68
Key legal issues
#Whether compensation for compulsory acquisition could properly extend to the entire parcel when only a portion (0.0096 of 0.03 ha) was acquired
No - the trial court erred in accepting the valuer's unsupported recommendation that the remaining 70% would be of no economic value; the Ministry of Lands valuation of the acquired portion of Kshs. 5,355,625 was the correct measure
The Prestige Management Valuers report, on which the trial court relied, assumed the owner would lose her entire interest without stating the basis for that assumption and without comparables with adjoining parcels, unlike the Ministry of Lands report. The principle of equivalence limits compensation to losses fairly attributed to the taking, not a greater amount. Compensation must equate restitution - a price equal to the pecuniary detriment, neither less nor more.
First appellate court's duty of re-evaluation of evidence
A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusion while bearing in mind the trial court's advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses, and will not disturb findings of fact unless unsupported or based on wrong principles
The court invoked Selle v Associated Motor Boats for the re-evaluation duty, and Ephantus Mwangi and Jabane v Olenja for the restraint on interfering with findings of fact. Applying that duty, the court examined the valuation reports afresh and found the trial court's reliance on the Prestige valuation unsustainable.
What amounts to just compensation under Article 40(3) of the Constitution
Just compensation is equitable compensation equating restitution, based on the principle of equivalence; the owner is paid for losses fairly attributed to the taking, neither less nor more
Adopting the reasoning of the five-judge bench in Patrick Musimba v National Land Commission, and through it Scott LJ in Horn v Sunderland Corporation, the court held that compensation must fully make up the seller's loss but not exceed it. The public coffers must also be protected against improvidence. The trial court's award for the whole parcel breached that equivalence principle.
Legal principles established
#- Compensation for compulsory acquisition must be quantified on the principle of equivalence, and a party whose property is acquired for a public purpose is entitled to prompt and fair compensation under Article 40(3)
- On a first appeal the appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusion, but will not interfere with findings of fact unless based on no evidence, a misapprehension of the evidence, or wrong principles
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Judgment of the trial court set aside
- 3.Substituted order that fair and just compensation for the compulsory acquisition of 0.0096 out of 0.03 ha of LR No. 1692/68 is Kshs. 5,355,625 as assessed by the Ministry of Lands
- 4.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 164 of the Constitution (court exercising first appellate jurisdiction over the ELC decision); no specific provision expressly cited
Relief refused
#1st respondent's claim to compensation of Kshs 7,700,000 based on valuation of the entire parcel
The valuer's recommendation that the entire parcel be compensated lacked any basis; no comparables were given; the remaining portion retained economic value
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. We substitute therefor an order that the fair and just compensation for the compulsory acquisition of 0.0096 out of 0.03 ha of the 1st respondent’s parcel LR No. 1692/68 is Kshs. 5,355,625 as assessed by the Ministry of Lands
There shall be no order as to costs.
we are of the view that the trial court fell into error in accepting the reasoning of the valuer that the 70% of the 1st respondent’s property that had not been acquired was rendered of no economic value by the acquisition of a portion of the property.
the only equitable compensation for compulsory acquisition of land should be one which equates restitution. Once the property is acquired and there is direct loss by reason of the acquisition the owner is entitled to be paid the equivalent.
This being a first appeal, we are under a duty to re-evaluate the evidence before the trial court and reach our own conclusion
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the date of the Ministry of Lands valuation report: earlier it is described as dated 19th January 2012, but in the final orders it is described as dated 19th December 2012
The trial court's extracted ruling refers to the Prestige Valuers report as dated 11th November 2011, while elsewhere the judgment describes the same report as dated 16th November 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Wanjohi & 10 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Environment and Land Case 3 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8349 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8349 (KLR)1 Dec 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Highways Authority v Issa & 3 others (Civil Appeal 59 of 2019) [2025] KECA 213 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/213/eng@2025-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.