Environment and Land Court Judge Nelly Awori Matheka has issued a landmark ruling, ordering the Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) to pay Sh84 million for unlawfully fencing off a 1.2-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Moi International Airport in Mombasa.
“This court finds that the actions of KAA of compulsorily acquiring the land were unconstitutional. There was a violation of the petitioners’ right to property and they are entitled to remedies,” declared Justice Matheka.
According to evidence presented in court, KAA had been occupying the land since 1978.
The land is owned by Abeid Awadh and Omar Khamis, who serve as executors of the late Omar Bin Khamis's will. They initiated legal action against KAA and the Attorney General, asserting their rights over the property.
“It is evident that the first respondent (KAA) was well aware that the late Omar Bin Khamis was following up on the suit premises (land),” Justice Matheka remarked.
Read More
Documentation presented during the proceedings indicated KAA's knowledge of the dispute.
Correspondence between KAA's managing director and Bin Khamis in 2004, as well as engagement with a law firm representing the petitioners in 2014, highlighted KAA's awareness of the matter.
“Despite being aware of the situation at hand, the respondent (KAA) did not demonstrate to the court that they made further inquiries into their encroachment of the land since they became aware of the petitioners' predicament,” Justice Matheka stated in her ruling.
The court learned that while the Commissioner of Lands had compulsorily acquired two acres of land in 1978 and compensated the petitioners, KAA had unlawfully occupied an additional 1.288 acres without providing just compensation.
This ruling not only upholds the sanctity of property rights but also underscores the importance of due diligence in land acquisition processes.
It serves as a precedent, emphasizing the obligation of government entities to respect citizens' property rights and ensure fair compensation.
As KAA prepares to comply with the court's directive, the ruling stands as a testament to the judiciary's commitment to justice and the protection of constitutional rights.
