NAIROBI, Kenya — The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Sh33.9 million compensation claim filed by Mavoloni Company Limited against the Tanathi Water Services Board, ruling that the company failed to prove its land was compulsorily acquired for the Yatta Dam project.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Kathurima M’Inoti, and Francis Tuiyott upheld an earlier decision of the High Court in Machakos that had dismissed the suit.
The dispute concerned a five-acre parcel identified as Ithanga/Gituamba/Mavoloni Block 2/205, which Mavoloni claimed was affected by the construction of the Yatta Dam along the Thika River in 2009.
The company argued that the project submerged or rendered unusable the land and several developments on it, including irrigation infrastructure, storage facilities, security houses, and pit latrines. It sought compensation amounting to Sh33,907,000.
Board Denied Acquiring the Land
Tanathi Water Services Board denied acquiring the disputed parcel, maintaining that it only purchased specific parcels through a voluntary sale agreement that had been fully settled.
According to the Board, the contested property remained registered in Mavoloni Company’s name and was never included in the acquisition arrangements relating to the dam project.
The appellate judges agreed with that position, finding no evidence that the statutory process required for compulsory acquisition had been followed.
“From the evidence on record, that prescribed procedure was not followed in this case, leading to the inevitable conclusion that there was no compulsory acquisition of the suit property as understood in law,” the court held.
Written Agreement Was Binding
The judges further ruled that the only legally enforceable arrangement between the parties was the written sale agreement, which expressly identified the parcels covered by the transaction.
The court noted that any variation of that agreement would have required a written amendment signed by both parties, something that never occurred with respect to the disputed land.
As a result, the bench rejected Mavoloni’s argument that it was entitled to compensation outside the terms of the contract.
Insufficient Evidence of Interference
The Court of Appeal also dismissed claims that compensation was automatically payable because the property allegedly fell within or near the dam project area.
The judges stated that if Mavoloni believed the dam had unlawfully interfered with its land, it ought to have specifically pleaded and proved such a claim.
“If it was the appellant’s case that the respondent’s dam had unlawfully interfered with the suit property giving rise to a case for compensation, the appellant ought to have properly pleaded its case as such,” the court said.
The bench added that even under that argument, the company had failed to produce sufficient evidence demonstrating actual interference with the property by the Board.
The appeal was consequently dismissed, with costs awarded to Tanathi Water Services Board.
