Kenafric Bakery Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others [2017] KEELC 2264 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to strike out a landowner's Kshs. 490 million interest claim against the Government over delayed compulsory acquisition compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be struck out for lack of legal basis for the interest claim
The court declined to strike out; the matter is not plain and obvious and should proceed to trial to determine when possession was taken and whether the claimed interest is payable.
The court considered the pleadings, application, affidavits and submissions, and applying the D.T. Dobie principle that dismissal jurisdiction is sparingly exercised, found the case was not plain and obvious. The disputed factual issue of the date possession vested in the Government required trial rather than summary striking out.
Jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Kenya Roads Act
The court held it has jurisdiction over compulsory acquisition disputes and did not find the suit barred by Section 67 of the Kenya Roads Act.
The court noted its jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act over compulsory acquisition disputes. Although the 2nd Defendant argued the Section 67 notice and time-bar, the court found this dispute required determination of when possession was taken, a matter for trial, and therefore the striking-out application failed.
Date of taking possession under Sections 16 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act
Title to the acquired land ought to have vested in the Government 60 days after the award, i.e. from the award of 7th May 2012.
Section 19(1) provides that possession and title vest no later than 60 days after the award. Since the award was made on 7th May 2012, the court reasoned that title ought to have vested in the Government 60 days from that date, and this disputed factual question should be determined at trial.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction to strike out or dismiss an action should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th July 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenafric Bakery Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others [2017] KEELC 2264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2264/eng@2017-07-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.