Kenya Urban Roads Authority v Muambi Properties Ltd & another; Katheka Kai Farmers' Co-operative Society Limited (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#KURA must pay Kshs. 52.6 million compensation for building a road on private land without paying the landowner first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What grounds of appeal raise matters of fact
- 2.Whether LAT failed to apply the appropriate principles in its assessment of compensation
Key legal issues
#Scope of first appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal
The court's jurisdiction is confined to matters of law; grounds (a) and (e) of the appeal were questions of fact and not tenable.
Section 133D of the Land Act confines appeals from the Tribunal to questions of law. The court, guided by Kenya Breweries Ltd v Odoyo and the principle in Watt v Thomas, separated fact from law and declined to entertain grounds (a) and (e), which concerned factual findings, including whether the 1st respondent proved its case on a balance of probabilities.
Whether LAT erred in assessing compensation based on the NLC award
LAT did not err; the award of Kshs. 52,632,888 was properly founded on the statutory criteria and the appellant produced no contrary valuation.
The initial compulsory acquisition complied with the Land Act; the award was accepted but never paid because the appellant said it exceeded budget. After withdrawal under Section 123, the appellant entered the land and built the road without compensation. The NLC's assessment followed Section 107B and the Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) Rules, and the appellant offered no compliant valuation to displace it.
Constitutional requirement of prompt payment of just compensation
Compulsory acquisition must be attended by prompt payment in full of just compensation under Article 40(3) and Section 111 of the Land Act.
The court reinforced the doctrine of eminent domain and Article 40(3), citing Attorney General v Zinj Limited. In the initial acquisition the award was accepted but no payment was made, contrary to Section 115 of the Land Act; the appellant's later unilateral entry and construction without compensation grounded the compensation claim before LAT.
Legal principles established
#- An acquiring body that fails to pay an accepted compensation award and later enters the land cannot escape liability; it must displace the NLC's assessment with its own valuation anchored in legally established criteria.
- Under Section 133D of the Land Act, an appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal lies on questions of law only.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with each party bearing their respective costs of the appeal
- 2.Appellant directed to deposit the decretal sum within 90 days into a special compensation account to be held by the 2nd respondent in accordance with the law
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Land Acquisition Tribunal at Nairobi
- Tribunal Case No. LAP 028 of 2024 (Muambi Properties vs. Kenya Urban Roads Authority and National Land Commission)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 133D of the Land Act (first appeal from the Land Acquisition Tribunal on matters of law only)
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer to set aside the LAT judgment and compensation award
Appeal lacked merit; LAT did not err in relying on the NLC award since the appellant failed to displace it with a valuation report based on legally established criteria
Costs
Each party bearing their respective costs of the appeal
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.
Ultimately, this court finds the appeal lacks merit and dismisses it, with each party bearing their respective costs of the appeal.
Since the suit land is the subject of disputes before this court, the appellant is directed to deposit the decretal sum within 90 days hereof into a special compensation account to be held by the 2nd respondent in accordance with the law.
Accordingly, the court finds that LAT did not err in relying on the 2nd respondent’s award in the assessment of compensation. Its decision is hereby upheld.
Under the legal framework of Section 133D of the Land Act, the jurisdiction of this court, as a first appellate court, is confined to matters of law, as provided in the statute.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment describes itself as a first appeal but relies on second-appeal authority
1st respondent's submissions dated 30 January 2026, after the memorandum of appeal of October 2024; date appears anomalous
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Urban Roads Authority v Muambi Properties Ltd & another; Katheka Kai Farmers' Co-operative Society Limited (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Land Appeal No. E048 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5557/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.