The National Land Commission (NLC) has been ordered to unravel the mystery surrounding ownership of a parcel of land in Mombasa where 41 different people have laid claim to proprietorship and have been seeking compensation from the government.
This follows an order by the Land Acquisition Tribunal directing NLC to conduct an inquiry and settle the competing claims surrounding ownership of the property measuring 6.4 acres (2.6070 Hectares). NLC is expected to find the genuine owner.
Part of the land had been earmarked in 2014 for compulsory acquisition by NLC on behalf of the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) for the construction of the Mombasa Southern Bypass and Kipevu Terminal Link Road in Mombasa and Kwale counties.
Another section was marked for acquisition in 2022 on behalf of the Kenya Railways Corporation for the construction of the Miritini Metre-gauge Railway (MGR) Station – Mombasa SGR terminus MGR Link in Mombasa County.
During the two inquiry hearings for project-affected persons, the NLC discovered multiple claims over the suit property and consequently, suspended the compensation awards.
While ruling on a claim filed by Mr Mgambo El Hassan against NLC seeking compensation for the suit land, the tribunal faulted NLC for the 11-year delay in determining the proprietorship row since the first dispute arose in 2014.
The tribunal said even though the NLC was under a duty to withhold making any award because of the dispute, doing so while taking no step to resolve the dispute over ownership is a serious dereliction of its legal mandate.
"As it stands, the Respondent (NLC) is yet to complete the inquiry as envisioned in the Land Act. It is now over 11 years from the date of the inquiry hearings in relation to the compulsory acquisition process over the suit property and over two years from the date of the inquiry hearings in relation to the latter compulsory acquisition process," said the tribunal.
Mr Hassan sued in May 2025, claiming that he was the registered proprietor of the subject property and that he had been in peaceful possession and use of the same for 27 years.
He said that during the period, there were no competing claims over the whole or part of the suit property.
To buttress his claim, Mr Hassan presented documentary evidence, including a Certificate of Title, a letter of allotment dated May 31, 1996, and a Certificate of Postal Search dated December 23, 2024. The land is registered as L.R. No. MN/VI/3869 and measures approximately 2.6070 Hectares.
According to the claimant, the NLC's continued failure to compensate him over the acquisition of the suit property constitutes an unlawful and illegal deprivation of his constitutional rights.
The claimant wanted the tribunal to declare him the bona fide owner and direct NLC to compensate him.
However, the tribunal took note of the NLC's contention that during the inquiry hearings, 41 claimants presented claims over the suit property as well as supporting documents.
"Unfortunately, we have not had the benefit of hearing from the other 41 persons who have an interest in the suit property. This wouldn’t be within our mandate, in any case," said the tribunal comprising Nabil Orina and George Supeyo.
Even though the tribunal ought to be satisfied that a party who comes before it has an interest in the property which is a subject of compulsory acquisition, it is not within its mandate to determine disputes over competing ownership claims.
"The first port of call for the determination of interests in compulsory acquisition is the Respondent (NLC). In a situation where parties have gone to court over ownership, the Respondent is under a duty to withhold the making of an award," they said.
Another finding was that, though a Certificate of Title is deemed as proof of ownership, and that the Commission is obliged, upon satisfaction that the said party has shown conclusive evidence of ownership, to issue an award of compensation, if a dispute arises as to ownership, the Commission is expected to withhold any compensation pending resolution of such a dispute.
They directed NLC to conduct a full inquiry hearing and decide on the lawful owner of the suit property and the proper party entitled to compensation.
The tribunal noted that NLC, in its submissions, did not provide evidence indicating that it had started or intended to begin an inquiry process to have the matter concluded. The case is scheduled for mention in October for compliance.
