A public infrastructure project can involve a negotiated land purchase without establishing that every neighbouring parcel was acquired. Before debating compensation amounts, an owner may need to establish which land was taken, through what legal process, and what the evidence proves.
In Mavoloni Company Limited v Tanathi Water Services Board, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Appeal No. E062 of 2020, the court dismissed a compensation appeal on 12 June 2026, with costs to Tanathi. The judgment upheld dismissal of Mavoloni's claim concerning land and developments associated with the Yatta Dam project. It did not award compensation or direct acquisition of the disputed parcel. (Paragraphs 1-3 and 45; PDF page 20.)
Two different explanations of the transaction
Mavoloni claimed approximately KSh33.9 million, alleging that Tanathi had acquired an additional parcel without valuing or compensating it, alongside claims for developments. Tanathi denied acquiring or possessing that parcel and said it had paid fully under the parties' sale agreement. These were opposing positions, not an agreed account of the project's physical effects. (Paragraphs 2-4.)
The appellate court found that the evidence established a willing-seller, willing-buyer agreement for 95 hectares to be excised from a larger property, together with improvements. The agreed price was KSh110,361,348, and payment was undisputed. Both parties accepted that the parcel at the centre of the additional claim was not included in that agreement. (Paragraphs 26 and 36.)
The contract also mattered beyond its price. Its special conditions required amendments to be written and duly executed, and treated it as the entire agreement governing the transaction. The court held that the disputed parcel could not simply be added without the required written agreement. (Paragraphs 37-38.)
An acquisition claim required acquisition evidence
The court treated the pleaded claim as one for compensation following compulsory acquisition. It distinguished that legal process from an ordinary sale, discussing the applicable historical statutory requirements, including gazette notice and other procedural steps. On the evidence, those requirements had not been followed, and compulsory acquisition of the disputed parcel had not been proved. (Paragraphs 32-36.)
That finding was not a general declaration that public projects can never interfere with land outside a purchase agreement. It resolved the case pleaded and proved here. The court explained that, if Mavoloni alleged unlawful interference by the dam, it needed to plead that case properly or seek an amendment. (Paragraph 44.)
Nor was the result merely a technical pleading defeat. The court added that, even with suitable pleadings, Mavoloni had not proved unlawful interference on a balance of probabilities in light of the evidence and Tanathi's denial that the parcel lay in the dam area. (Paragraph 44, continuing onto page 20.)
Alleged submersion was not an established outcome
Mavoloni's submissions said the parcel had been submerged. But the recorded testimony included admissions that the dam had not yet been constructed, and that a survey report did not show the area it would cover. Tanathi's witness also denied that the parcel formed part of the dam area. The article cannot turn the submersion allegation into a verified physical event. (Paragraphs 10, 30-31.)
The court separately rejected Tanathi's objection to late service of the appeal record because no timely striking-out application had been made. It then decided the merits against Mavoloni. Success on that preliminary issue therefore did not establish entitlement to compensation. (Paragraphs 19-24 and 45.)
For owners and advisers, the practical question is whether the contract, parcel boundaries, project evidence and pleaded claim describe the same land and alleged interference. A disputed valuation alone does not answer that question. Later proceedings and the project's present physical status have not been checked.
See how ArdhiScore works with parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence. Coverage varies; it does not replace official checks, professional surveying or legal advice, certify compensation entitlement, or guarantee prevention of loss.