Kenya National Highways Authority v Mandev Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E050 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3949 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court confirmed KeNHA must pay Mandev Limited Kshs. 30 million plus interest for land acquired for the Nairobi Expressway.
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 Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the dispute, and whether it exceeded that jurisdiction
- 2.whether the acquired portion of L.R. No. 209/9724 was compensable, or whether it constituted public land a road reserve and/or buffer zone for which no compensation was payable
- 3.whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest
- 4.what orders, including as to costs, ought to issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal was validly constituted sitting with two members
The Tribunal was validly constituted; the Land Act prescribes membership but not quorum, and the absence of one member does not paralyse it
The statute fixes membership at three but is silent on quorum. It would be an unreasonable construction to hold that the absence of a single member paralyses the Tribunal. Nothing on the record suggested the sitting members failed appointment criteria or that the constitution of the Tribunal was irregular.
Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a dispute touching title and road reserve
The Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction; its jurisdiction under section 133C includes determining whether land claimed for compensation belonged to the claimant or was public land, tested by the claim as pleaded
Section 133C of the Land Act confers jurisdiction over the compulsory acquisition process, including constitutional complaints under Articles 23(2) and 47(3). A necessary incident is determining whether the land belonged to the claimant. Jurisdiction is tested by the averments in the complaint, which sought only compensation, not a declaration of title; the Tribunal expressly disavowed title jurisdiction under section 127(1)(a).
Whether the acquired portion was a compensable private parcel or an uncompensable public road reserve
The Appellant and NLC failed to prove the existence of a lawfully constituted road reserve; the registered title and accepted award stand and compensation was payable
The authenticated Survey Plan F/R No. 161/49 of 1982 depicted a 60-metre reserve and no buffer, and was never cancelled or superseded. The Appellant relied on planning correspondence and self-originated maps, not cadastral survey. The buffer zone was created in 1986, after the land was alienated in 1981, and could only bind the proprietor through fresh acquisition. NLC called no witness and its unrevoked award was inconsistent with public-land status.
Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest from 22nd January 2021
The award of interest was properly made under section 117 of the Land Act and as part of just compensation under Article 40(3)
Section 117 provides for interest on compensation awards at the CBK base lending rate from the date possession is taken until payment. Possession was taken and the award unpaid; the choice of the award date was within the Tribunal's discretion and reasonable. Interest is integral to just compensation, and the remedial discretion under Article 23(3) applies.
Legal principles established
#- An alleged encroachment into a road reserve must be proved by authenticated survey records; gazette notices of intention to acquire do not establish encroachment
- Article 40(6) operates only upon a finding of unlawful acquisition made through a competent legal process, not by assertion
- The burden of proving that registered land falls within a public road reserve lies on the party asserting it
- A later reservation cannot convert already-alienated private land into public road reserve without fresh compulsory acquisition and resurvey
- Interest on an unpaid compensation award is an integral part of just compensation under Article 40(3)
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Tribunal at Nairobi delivered on 10th February 2025 in Tribunal Complaint No. TRLAP/E023 of 2024 are upheld in their entirety
- 3.The Appellant and the 2nd Respondent shall pay to the 1st Respondent the sum of Kshs. 30,000,000.00, together with interest thereon at the Central Bank of Kenya base lending rate from 22nd January 2021 until payment in full, in terms of the award of the Tribunal
- 4.The Appellant shall bear the 1st Respondent's costs of this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Land Acquisition Tribunal at Nairobi
- TRLAP/E023 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 128 and 133D of the Land Act, 2012 and the Land Acquisition (Appeals to the High Court) Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the Tribunal's judgment and decree be set aside and the 1st Respondent's complaint dismissed
All grounds of appeal failed; the Tribunal's findings on jurisdiction, compensability and interest were sound
Costs
The Appellant shall bear the 1st Respondent's costs of this appeal; the costs awarded to the 1st Respondent before the Tribunal are unaffected and stand
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.
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Tribunal at Nairobi delivered on 10th February 2025 in Tribunal Complaint No. TRLAP/E023 of 2024 are upheld in their entirety.
(iii) For the avoidance of doubt, the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent shall pay to the 1st Respondent the sum of Kshs. 30,000,000.00, together with interest thereon at the Central Bank of Kenya base lending rate from 22nd January 2021 until payment in full, in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
(iv) The Appellant shall bear the 1st Respondent's costs of this appeal.
A road reserve cannot be brought into existence over a registered and uncancelled parcel by planning correspondence and maps purporting to depict a wider reservation than the authenticated survey discloses; it must be established by an authenticated survey and, where the land is already alienated, by a lawful acquisition.
The root of a registered title is not impugned by a bare averment in a defence; it is impugned by a counterclaim through which the party asserts a competing interest and seeks relief against the title, upon which the proprietor is put to proof of the legality of his acquisition
Issues in the judgment
#Date discrepancy: the 1st Respondent's submissions are described as dated 23rd June 2026, yet the judgment is dated 30th June 2026 and the Memorandum of Appeal dated 12th March 2025; the submissions date appears internally inconsistent with the appeal timeline
Inconsistent road reserve width between the Appellant's pleaded case and the authorities it relied on (88 metres pleaded versus 80 metres in Shalein Masood Mughal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Highways Authority v Mandev Ltd & another (Environment and Land Appeal E050 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3949 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal against Tribunal Complaint No. TRLAP/E023 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3949/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.