- In a bid to compulsorily acquire a portion of Mr Mubei’s property, Ketraco had maliciously, fraudulent and illegally undervalued the said 4.647 acres of land at a paltry Ksh. 6,970,073.25 instead of Ksh.15m
The Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Limited (KETRACO) has been directed by the environmental court to compensate Mr Kenneth Kipkirui Mubei for the loss of a user. In a ruling dated 11th July 2023 delivered by Judge. A O Ombwa of the Environment and Land Court in Nakuru ruled that Mr Mubei should be paid Ksh. 15m by Ketraco.
Mr Mubei had sued the company which was claiming property known as LR No 13287/42 measuring approximately 21.36 hectares. On October 8, 2018, KETRACO egregiously and without any notice of inquiry and/or notice of intention to acquire the plaintiff’s parcel of land awarded a contract for the construction of the 400/222kv DC way leave Olkaria- Lessons- Kisumu transmission line with a view of evacuating electricity from the geothermal generation plants of Olkaria.
The wayleave trace of 60 meters 60-meter-wide corridor transmission line traverses approximately 4.647 acres over Mr Mubei’s parcel of land. On or around the year 2015/2016 Ketraco fraudulently and only on partial compensation of an alleged 70% of the full value ordered Mubei to bring down structures that he had put up on the subject property along the corridors of the wireline.
Ketraco in a bid to compulsorily acquire a portion of Mubei’s property had maliciously, fraudulent and illegally undervalued the said 4.647 acres of land at a paltry Ksh. 6,970,073.25 a sum which does not meet the current open market value of the portion of the property majorly to unlawfully deprive him of his entitlement to benefit from his lawful proprietorship.
Further on or about February 22, 2019, Ketraco capriciously and egregiously gave notice through the Kenya Gazette of their intention to acquire Mubei’s property for the construction of the Olkaria-Lessos- Kisumu 400/220/132KV without consulting the plaintiff, without fully compensating him, without according him commensurate compensation and without any prior notice to the plaintiff.
Mubei further claimed that Ketraco had trespassed on and forcefully put up a wire line on the said land parcel without any legal authority or express permission of the plaintiff as the legal owner and without affording the plaintiff any compensation. As a result of Ketraco’s malice and illegality, he has suffered immense loss. Based on the above he prayed for commensurate and full compensation for the loss of user of the subject property as per the current market value of the property. The plaintiff believes that a permanent and temporary injunction against the defendants until the plaintiff is fully compensated will suffice. Lastly, he prays for damages for the loss of users and profits.
However, Ketraco in a quick rejoinder claimed that Mubei was offered Ksh.6, 970,073.25 as fair compensation for the loss of the user of the land and denied claims of fraud and trespass on Mubei.
Oncliams that Ketraco undervalued the property; Mubei tabled a report by Joseph Mungatia Inoti, a valuer since 1992 who valued the land acquired by Ketraco as the easement measuring 4.647 acres out of 52.8 acres. The land has an agreement. He valued the land at Ksh.31, 300,000.
The judge in his ruling noted that “I have considered the application on record and do find that it is not clear how the 1st defendant arrived at a valuation of Kshs5, 000,000 per acre. On the other hand, the plaintiff engaged the services of Prime Valuer experts in valuation who came up with a value of Kshs31, 300,000”.
The ruling reads “To balance between the two valuations, this court finds that a figure of Kshs15, 000,000 would be a sufficient compensation due to the fact that the plaintiff will be allowed limited use of the parcel of land. The court in arriving at the figure has considered the fact that the plaintiff’s usage of the land will be limited because he cannot utilize the land fully by planting trees or erecting any structure”.
The ruling further reads “Ultimately, this court issues a declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property and entitled to all beneficial interests on the property subject to the easement created by the 1st defendant”.
On the value of the property, the judge ruled “The court further issues a declaration that the value of the subject property assigned by the 1st defendant is below the current market value of the subject property”.
