Doshi & another v Kenya National Highway Authority & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18708 (KLR) (27 February 2025) (Directions) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18708 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MALINDI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E004 OF 2025 EK MAKORI, J FEBRUARY 27, 2025 BETWEEN ASHOK LABSHANKER DOSHI .................................................... 1ST PETITIONER MOHAMED HUSSEIN JAFFER .................................................... 2ND PETITIONER AND KENYA NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY ....................... 1ST RESPONDENT CHINA COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD .... 2ND RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION .................................. 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTIONS 1. On 12th February 2025, the Applicant herein led a Petition stating that the Petitioner is the registered owner of LR No 1743 and LR 16142- Situate in Mariakani within Kili County. That 1st and 2nd Respondents have demolished the perimeter wall on the portion of the suit properties which about Nairobi-Mombasa Highway. The Applicant claim the land is private and no just compensation promptly and full has been paid for the compulsory acquisition of the suit property. 2. When the matter came up on 12th February 2025, under certicate of urgency the court reckoned that service was imperative in view of the fact that an expansion process of the Mombasa-Nairobi Highway is under way at Mariakani section. 3. On 26th February 2025, the court notied that the 1st Respondent was not in attendance and ordered for a further service. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18708/eng@2025-02-27 1
page 1 of 2
4. The matter came up on 3rd of March 2025. The 1st Respondent was still absent. Mr. Oluga contends that service had been eected and sought corresponding orders in the nature of restraining the Respondents from further trespass in the suit properties awaiting further directions on the dispute of the main motion application. Mr. Kiilu for 3rd Respondent averred that already the wall had already been brought down. Nothing to injunct or conserve pending a heave besides he doubted jurisdiction of this court to entertain the matter and that this is a matter within the purview of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Mr. Oluga contends that this is a matter that falls within the purview of this court since nothing has been shown that the land had been gazette for purpose of compulsory acquisition. 5. At this point in time from the materials placed before me it will be dicult to determine the extent of the damages on the suit property, the extent of ingress and whether this court has jurisdiction in view of the suggestion that the no point of call is the compulsory acquisition tribunal. 6. In order to have the issues fully addressed this court directs then; i. The application be fast tracked and parties le written submissions concerning the issues raised in the application and any primary and preliminary point of law that may arise. ii. That a date thereafter be taken for a ruling. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE Directions in open court in presence of Ms Machugu for the Petitioners Mr. Kiilu for the 3rd Respondent Mr. Tirop holding brief for Kibet Keni for 1st Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18708/eng@2025-02-27 2
page 2 of 2