SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Odhiambo v Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 438 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 7061 (KLR) (28 October 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KEELC 7061 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
7061
Citation
[2024] KEELC 7061 (KLR)
Decided
28 October 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCompulsory Acquisition DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramJA MOGENI, J
Holding

The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the unacquired portion of the suit property and that the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought.

Facts

The plaintiff Mary Odhiambo owned a portion of land measuring 0.7145 hectares. The defendant Kenya Railways Corporation acquired the upper portion of the land, leaving the plaintiff with an inaccessible lower portion. The plaintiff sought compensation for the unacquired portion.

Issues

  1. Whether the unacquired portion of the suit property was compulsorily acquired by the 1st defendant and the plaintiff was not compensated
  2. What was the extent of occupation by the 1st defendant of the suit property
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought

Reasoning

The court found that the plaintiff was not compensated for the unacquired portion of the land and that the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought. The court also noted that the plaintiff has no access to the portion of land that was not acquired by the defendant.

Outcome

The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the unacquired portion of the suit property and the orders sought.

Orders

  • Compensation for the unacquired portion of the suit property

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Land Acquisition Act Cap 295
Cases cited (1)
  • Attorney General vs Zinj Limited [Petition 1 of 2020] [2021] KESC 23 (KLR) (CIV) (3 December 2021)
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case