Kenya National Highway Authority v Igainya Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2771 (KLR)
The bottom line
#When Kenya's Land Commission cuts the size of land being compulsorily acquired, it must hear the landowner again and hold a fresh inquiry before awarding new compensation.
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 LAT erred in its finding that the remainder of the suit property comprising 56.86 acres was not usable
- 2.Whether the LAT erred in finding that, upon reducing the portion to be acquired, personal service upon the landowner, fresh gazettement and fresh inquiry were required by law
- 3.Whether the Tribunal acted without a statutory mandate, given that it was not fully constituted as a tribunal
- 4.Whether, where the initial acquisition was lawfully commenced and the project proponent subsequently alters the project before full compensation is paid, the acquisition process must be restarted
- 5.Whether government entities may be required to acquire and compensate for land they no longer require
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Tribunal where it was allegedly not fully constituted at the time the petition was filed
The ground is misplaced; the court transferred the case to the LAT's docket after establishing its jurisdiction and cannot sit in appeal over its own decision
The court found it had already determined the LAT's jurisdiction when it transferred the petition on 14 December 2023. Being functus officio on that question, it is barred from reviewing its own transfer decision; any grievance lay in the Court of Appeal, which the appellant did not pursue.
Whether the NLC could vary the area of land under acquisition without a fresh inquiry and hearing
Although the NLC had power under the Interpretation and General Provisions Act to amend/revoke its notices, it could not do so without fresh engagement of the project-affected persons and a fresh inquiry under Section 112 of the Land Act
The Land Act and its Regulations are silent on variation of a completed acquisition process. Section 3 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act permits amendment including revocation and variation. However, such unilateral action affects substantive constitutional rights to property and fair administrative action, so the project-affected persons must be heard and a fresh inquiry held before any new award.
Whether the LAT erred in awarding compensation for unacquired land
The LAT erred; compensation for the 2.222 hectares actually acquired should be established through a fresh inquiry, with the sums already paid taken into account
The inquiry originally conducted related only to the 5.6861 hectares under the earlier notices. A fresh inquiry under Section 112, read with the Land Value (Amendment) Act, 2019, would suffice to fix the appropriate award for the 2.222 hectares. Directing payment of the 90% balance of the 2018 award for 5.6861 hectares was a significant error.
Scope of the first appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal
The appeal lies only on questions of law under Section 133D of the Land Act and Order 42 Rule 32; the appellate court will not interfere unless the Tribunal misdirected itself or wrongly exercised its discretion causing injustice
Section 133D confines the appeal to questions of law. The court adopted Lord Simon's speech in Watt v Thomas, as approved in Chief Land Registrar v Nathan Tirop Koech, on the caution an appellate court owes to a tribunal that saw and heard the witnesses.
Legal principles established
#- Where the acquiring authority revokes or varies acquisition notices before full compensation is paid, it must engage the project-affected persons anew and conduct a fresh inquiry; the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 attaches to such variations
- An accepted award confers an enforceable legitimate expectation to the unpaid balance which cannot be arbitrarily negated by a subsequent unilateral administrative action
- A party who accepted an award and received part payment has a constitutional right to prompt payment in full under Article 40(3)(b)(i)
Court orders
#- 1.Within 30 days, the 2nd respondent shall issue a notice of inquiry regarding 2.222 hectares of L.R. No. 7815/8, originally no. 7815/6/1
- 2.An order of certiorari quashing the 1st respondent's award issued on 23rd January 2018 for the acquisition of 5.6861 hectares of L.R. No. 7815/8
- 3.An order of certiorari quashing the 1st respondent's award issued on 25th June 2021
- 4.The sum of Kshs. 64,631,624/- already paid to the 1st respondent shall be taken into account in the subsequent new award
- 5.Each party shall bear their respective costs of the appeal
- 6.The costs of the Land Acquisition Tribunal proceedings shall be borne jointly by the appellant and the 2nd respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Land Acquisition Tribunal (LAT)
- ELC Petition No. E013 of 2021 (as transferred)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 133D of the Land Act (first appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal on questions of law); Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Payment of the 90% balance of the 23 January 2018 award (Kshs. 581,684,619/-) as ordered by the LAT
The LAT erred in directing payment of the balance of the 2018 award; a fresh inquiry under Section 112 of the Land Act should establish the appropriate award for the 2.222 hectares actually acquired
The 1st respondent's constitutional claim for compensation for the full 5.6861 hectares as originally awarded
The award of 23 January 2018 was quashed; the acquisition was validly reduced to 2.222 hectares but required a fresh inquiry before a new award
Costs
Each party to bear their respective costs of the appeal; the costs of the Land Acquisition Tribunal proceedings to be borne jointly by the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
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.
Guided by the law, judicial precedence, reasons and findings, this court finds that the appeal is partly merited. Each party shall bear their respective costs of the appeal. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the LAT on 6 June 2024 is hereby set aside and substituted with an order in the following terms
That within 30 days hereof, the 2nd respondent shall issue a notice of inquiry regarding 2.222 hectares of L.R. No. 7815/8, originally no. 7815/6/1.
That the sum of Kshs. 64,631,624/-, already paid to the 1st respondent, shall be taken into account in the subsequent new award to be made to it.
an opportunity to be heard preceded the amendment concerning the 1st respondent's land and any subsequent awards arising from it.
It's right to prompt and full payment of this remaining sum, having accrued and become enforceable, then such right could not be arbitrarily negated, even under the provisions of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act.
By issuing a new award without a fresh inquiry, the 2nd respondent contravened the 1st respondent's statutory right under Section 112 of the Land Act
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment quashes the 23 January 2018 award of Kshs. 646,316,243/- while simultaneously affirming the 1st respondent's enforceable right to the remaining 90% of that same award, and records the LAT as having quashed 'the 1st respondent's award issued on 25th June 2021' though that award was made in favour of the 1st respondent
The memorandum of appeal is dated 5 July 2024 and filed on 'the instant date', yet submissions dated 5 November 2025 and 3 December 2025 and delivery on 12 May 2026 are referenced, indicating a long interval not explained in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Highway Authority v Igainya Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2771 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Memorandum of Appeal dated 5 July 2024 (original ELC Petition No. E013 of 2021 transferred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2771/eng@2026-05-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.