Ojwang v National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment & Land Case E010 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 217 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Siaya landowner lost his challenge to compulsory land acquisition after the court found the National Land Commission followed the Land Act correctly.
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 1st defendant was a necessary party to the proceedings
- 2.Whether the site visit report by the Deputy Registrar of 7/06/2024 was properly conducted
- 3.Whether the process of compulsory acquiring a portion of the suit property complied with statutory requirements
- 4.What orders should this court issue including an order as to costs
Key legal issues
#Necessary party in compulsory acquisition proceedings
The 1st defendant, being neither the acquiring body nor assigned any role under the Land Act, was improperly joined; the 2nd defendant (NLC) is the main player in the acquisition process
The court applied the Land Act framework: the acquiring body's role is limited to notifying the NLC and depositing compensation funds, while the NLC conducts the acquisition. Since no relief was sought against the 1st defendant and its presence was not necessary for effective adjudication, it was improperly joined and its suit was struck out.
Validity of the court's site visit
The site visit report was nullified because no evidence was adduced nor hearing conducted at the locus in quo
Relying on Order 18 Rule 11 CPR and the Court of Appeal decision in Sojanm Springfields, the court noted all parties' counsel were present and the purpose disclosed, but the visit occurred after the plaintiff closed his case without evidence or hearing, rendering it unfair and prejudicial.
Compliance of compulsory acquisition with the Land Act
The 2nd defendant complied with the statutory process; the acquisition had proceeded through the inquiry stage but not to an award
The court traced the statutory steps under Sections 107 to 120 of the Land Act, found the gazette notices and inquiry were duly published and conducted (with a fresh inquiry on 11/03/2022), and found the plaintiff's allegations of non-compliance unsubstantiated. Non-communication grievances were addressed by the 24-month lapse provision.
Enforceability of World Bank Environmental and Social Standards
The ESS is neither hard nor soft law and is unenforceable in Kenyan courts; the unsigned expert report relying on it lacked probative value
The court held that EIA obligations under EMCA Sections 58 and 63 rest with the project proponent and NEMA, not the defendants. The ESS is a World Bank standard unenforceable in Kenya, and the expert report citing it was unsigned, its authors' qualifications undisclosed, and its authors never called to testify.
Legal principles established
#- Where a compulsory acquisition process is not completed within twenty-four months from the date of publication of the notice of intention to acquire the land, the acquisition lapses
- An unsigned expert report has no probative value because it is unauthenticated
- A site visit conducted without adduction of evidence or hearing is tainted with unfairness and prejudice and may be nullified
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit against the 1st defendant is struck out
- 2.The plaintiff's suit against the 2nd defendant is dismissed
- 3.Each party shall bear their respective costs of this suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land and environment disputes (not expressly cited in the judgment; the claim was founded on Articles 27, 40 and 47 of the Constitution and the Land Act)
Relief refused
#Declarations of violation of Articles 27 and 47, environmental, social and cultural rights, ESS1, and the mandatory injunction for resettlement and compensation
The 2nd defendant complied with the Land Act; the ESS is unenforceable in Kenyan courts and the supporting expert report was unsigned and of no probative value
General and exemplary damages
The claim failed; the acquisition process had not breached the Land Act
Costs
Each party shall bear their respective costs of this suit.
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.
The plaintifi’s suit against the 1st defendant is hereby struck out.
The plaintifi’s suit against the 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed.
Each party shall bear their respective costs of this suit.
where an acquisition process is not completed within twenty-four months from the date of publication of the notice of intention to acquire the land, the acquisition shall lapse.
An unsigned document cannot possibly be of any probative value, for what authenticates a document and gives it legitimacy is the signature.
I must find that the site visit was tainted with unfairness and prejudice and is hereby nullified.
Issues in the judgment
#Heading of the third issue is duplicated as 'b.' (two consecutive issues labelled 'b.')
Judgment refers to 'Section 111 LA 1(B)' when quoting the proviso on lapse of acquisition after 24 months, which does not correspond to the quoted compensation-forms text
The judgment states the 2nd defendant 'did not call any witness' despite earlier noting a witness statement by Peter Kaunda
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ojwang v National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment & Land Case E010 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 217 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/217/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.