Omuse & 8 others v Sauti Savings & Credit Cooperative Society Ltd & 9 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E106 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 498 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi plot buyers won KES 4.3 million each in compensation with interest, after the court rejected the seller's valuation evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Assessment of compensation for the suit plots in lieu of specific performance
The court preferred the plaintiff's valuation by PW2 (Stanley Juma Muli), which was peer-reviewed and coherent, over the contradictory and deficient defence reports, and adopted Kes. 4,300,000/= as the compensatory market value.
The court weighed four valuation reports. DW1's report was discredited: he initially admitted he did not visit the site, then reversed himself; his report omitted comparables. DW2's report similarly lacked comparables in its body or appendices, and its comparables were plots three times bigger than the subject plots. PW2's report was coherent, based on inspection and un-serviced comparables, and had been peer-reviewed in line with ISK practice. Applying the criteria in Stephen Kinini Wang'ondu v The Ark Limited and Criticos v National Bank of Kenya on assessing expert evidence, the court found DW1 and DW2 unreliable and adopted PW2's figure.
Rejection of deduction of infrastructure costs from valuation
The defence valuer's deduction of infrastructure costs from market value was illogical because the plots were valued as un-serviced; serviced plots would attract higher, not lower, values.
DW2 arrived at an average value and then deducted the costs of proposed infrastructure. The court held this was self-defeating: the suit plots were being valued as un-serviced plots, and if they were serviced the values would be higher. Since valuation relates to the property as it is at the time, deducting future infrastructure costs from an un-serviced plot's value had no rational basis and undermined the reliability of the defence valuation.
Incidence of costs
Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, borne by the 1st Defendant, following the principle that costs follow the event.
Citing section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh Rai v Tarlochan Singh Rai, the court held that costs follow the event and that a successful party is to be indemnified unless there is cogent basis to deprive them of costs. No extenuating factors warranted such deprivation; indeed the plaintiffs had been subjected to mistreatment by the defendants. Liability for costs was placed on the 1st Defendant as the culpable party, applying the Salomon principle of separate corporate personality.
Liability of the 1st Defendant
The culpable party liable to the plaintiffs is the 1st Defendant, per the Salomon v Salomon principle.
In the final disposition, the court identified the 1st Defendant as the party culpable towards the plaintiffs, invoking Salomon v Salomon on separate legal personality as reiterated in Omondi v National Bank of Kenya. Accordingly, compensation was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs but costs (and effectively the liability flowing from the judgment) were fastened onto the 1st Defendant rather than the 2nd Defendant.
Legal principles established
#- Expert evidence does not trump other evidence; a court may reject expert opinion that is internally contradictory, lacks underlying facts, or whose reasoning is defective, preferring competing expert evidence after testing it against the whole record.
- Comparables deployed by a valuer must be reflected in the body of the valuation report to enable the court to interrogate them.
- Costs follow the event; a successful party should not be deprived of costs without a plausible, cogent and credible basis.
Court orders
#- 1.The Market value of the suit plots be and is hereby assessed and certified in the sum of Kes. 4,300,000/= only.
- 2.Each Plaintiff be and is hereby awarded the sum of Kes. 4,300,000/= only as compensation on account of the market value of the suit plots in lieu of specific performance.
- 3.The Award in terms of clause [ii] hereof shall accrue interests at court rates [14%] per annum w.e.f date of filing the suit.
- 4.Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the Plaintiffs and same shall be borne by the 1st Defendant.
- 5.Any other reliefs not expressly granted is hereby denied.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction (land claim); case proceeds per consent adopted as court order dated 14 June 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omuse & 8 others v Sauti Savings & Credit Cooperative Society Ltd & 9 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E106 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/498/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.