Paul Mulatya Makula v Attorney General & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2537 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court ruled the government must pay a bishop over Kshs. 17.9 million for taking his land without compensation—even though he held no title deed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Violation of the right to property under Article 40
The state took the Petitioner's suit property for public use without compensation, breaching Article 40(3)
The court found the Petitioner to be the beneficial owner of the suit property, allotted by the City Council of Nairobi. The Provincial Administration took it over for a Chief's office and Administration Police Post on a promise of an alternative plot that never materialised. Efforts to settle the Petitioner failed and the state then went silent without compensation. Article 40(4) allows compensation even to occupants without title, defeating the respondents' argument that compensation requires a title deed.
Violation of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47
The state breached Article 47 by failing to give written reasons or any response to the Petitioner's follow-ups over many years
The decision to take the suit property adversely affected the Petitioner's rights, entitling him to expeditious, lawful and procedurally fair administrative action with written reasons. Letters from 2004 onwards went unanswered, and even a 2017 request to the County Commissioner for a brief went unanswered. The court held the state's conduct could not be described as fair and found a clear violation of Article 47.
Entitlement to compensation and quantum
Petitioner awarded Kshs. 16,445,000.00 as compensation based on an uncontradicted valuation, plus general damages of Kshs. 1,500,000/= for the Article 47 breach; the separate special damages claim failed
A valuation report valuing the land at Kshs. 12,000,000, improvements at Kshs. 250,000, lost rental income at Kshs. 2,050,000 and 15% under the Land Act at Kshs. 2,145,000 was uncontradicted and accepted as reasonable as at 8th February 2016. However, the further special damages claim of Kshs. 14,130,000 was speculative and unproved, and contradicted by the Petitioner's own consent in HCCC No. 10 of 2004 that he had put up no structure.
Legal principles established
#- Compensation for deprivation of property under Article 40 is not confined to persons holding title; occupants in good faith without title may also be compensated
- Violations of property rights occurring under the old Constitution but continuing under the 2010 Constitution can still be remedied under the new Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Petitioner's rights under Article 40 of the Constitution relating to the protection of the right to ownership of property and prompt, full, fair and just compensation have been violated by the state
- 2.A declaration that the Petitioner's rights and legitimate expectation to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution have been breached by the state
- 3.Special damages of Kshs. 16,445,000.00 being compensation for plot No. C-118, Kiambiu Settlement Scheme, Eastleigh South as at 8th February 2016, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.General damages of Kshs. 1,500,000/= for breach of Article 47 of the Constitution
- 5.Costs of the Petition to the Petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 40 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Mulatya Makula v Attorney General & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2537 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Petition Number 7 of 2018 (Formerly Petition No. 112 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2537/eng@2020-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.