Charles Maina Murachu & another v National Land Commission & another [2018] KEELC 873 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed landowners' compensation claim because they had been paid and never used the legal process for disputing the amount.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether compensation was paid for the compulsorily acquired land
Yes - the petitioners' own letter of 20th April 2004 acknowledged receipt of compensation; their grievance was only its adequacy
The petitioners' letter to the Minister for Lands recorded payments made in 1979, e.g. Kshs.44,275 for Plot Othaya/Kiahagu 165, and complained the rate of under Kshs.10,000 per acre was too low. This documentary admission contradicted the petition's assertion of non-compensation and established that only quantum was disputed.
Whether the constitutional petition could be used to challenge the award
No - Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act provided an appeal to a tribunal and the High Court, and Section 35 barred court proceedings questioning an award; the petitioners never used that route
The respondents submitted, and the court accepted, that the repealed Land Acquisition Act, Cap 295 prescribed the procedure for a person dissatisfied with the Commissioner's award. Section 35 barred any proceedings in court questioning an award. Having neither used the prescribed mechanism nor explained the failure, the petitioners could not sustain a constitutional claim of violation.
Whether the acquisition complied with the applicable law and procedures
Yes - on the documents and the petitioners' admission of payment, the court was satisfied the applicable procedures were complied with
The burden lay on the petitioners, who asserted non-compliance, to prove it. Apart from the complaint about quantum, no evidence of procedural irregularity was produced. Their admission of payment, alongside the annexed documents, satisfied the court that the acquisition was lawfully effected.
Whether the compensation was inadequate
Not proved - no valuation report or document showing the value of the land at the time of acquisition was availed
Mere assertion that the award was grossly low was insufficient. The petitioners were required to prove inadequacy, for instance by a valuation report done at the time of acquisition, but none was produced, so the claim of inadequate compensation failed on the evidence.
Legal principles established
#- A party aggrieved by a compulsory acquisition award must pursue the statutory review procedure under the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 295); the court will not entertain a constitutional claim over inadequate compensation where that procedure was bypassed without explanation
- He who alleges inadequacy of compensation bears the burden of proving it, e.g. by a valuation report at the material time
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 40(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition for violation of right to property)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Maina Murachu & another v National Land Commission & another [2018] KEELC 873 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition (Nyeri) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/873/eng@2018-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.