Five Star had a judgment increasing compensation for land acquired for a road project. Years later, it was still pursuing payment. The existence of money in an account held by the National Land Commission did not make ordinary attachment the correct way to recover its award.
Five Star Agencies Ltd & another v National Land Commission & 2 others [2024] KECA 439 (KLR), consolidated Civil Appeals E290 and E328 of 2023, was decided by the Court of Appeal at Nairobi on 12 April 2024.
The court rejected both appeals while expressly preserving Five Star's entitlement to compensation. It did not conduct a fresh valuation of the acquired land.
An award led to a long enforcement dispute
A portion of Five Star's property had been acquired for the Nairobi Southern Bypass. The ELC increased the compensation award to KSh 413,192,500 in 2014.
Nonpayment led to further proceedings, including an earlier mandamus order and an attempt to attach funds through garnishee proceedings. That process seeks payment from a third party holding money for a judgment debtor.
The NLC and the acquiring authority, KENHA, opposed attachment of the account. They argued about the funds' purpose, responsibility for payment and the restrictions on execution against government.
KENHA also sought to challenge its absence from the original compensation proceedings. These arguments produced the two appeals considered together in 2024.
The certificate was not the same document as the decree
The Court of Appeal held that the government-execution procedure applied to the NLC. Ordinary garnishee proceedings were not available against it in the manner attempted.
The court also examined the earlier mandamus process. It found that Five Star had served the decree but had not first obtained and served the required Certificate of Order against the Government.
Paragraphs 95–100 treat that certificate as a prerequisite, not as another name for the judgment already held. A demand and failure to comply also formed part of the process identified by the court.
The point was not that compensation could lawfully remain unpaid forever. It was that the claimant had to use the legally available route to compel the responsible public officer to perform the payment duty.
Both appeals failed, but the compensation right was not removed
The court rejected KENHA's argument that its non-joinder required the original decision to be set aside on this record.
The consolidated appeals were dismissed, each party bearing its own costs. The court expressly recognised Five Star's right to prompt compensation while finding the attempted enforcement route defective.
A later Supreme Court petition by KENHA was struck out for want of jurisdiction in [2024] KESC 62 (KLR). Security was ordered refunded and no costs order was made. That ruling was not a new decision on the property's value.
Later mandamus orders require careful reporting
Retained source readings include [2025] KEELC 4313 (KLR), decided on 9 June 2025. After considering the certificate and service evidence, that court directed the NLC's Chief Executive Officer to pay KSh 909,023,500 with further interest from 3 December 2024. Costs were awarded against the NLC; contempt relief was considered premature.
A further reported ruling, [2026] KEELC 3383 (KLR) of 4 June 2026, directed payment of the same stated sum within ninety days, but used interest wording running from 24 November 2014. It listed a compliance mention for 30 September 2026 and awarded costs to the applicant. Noncompliance would trigger show-cause summons, not an automatic contempt finding.
These formulations are not silently reconciled here. Both decisions refer to a motion dated 3 March 2025, and their relationship and interest treatment require the actual court file, certificate and decree to clarify.
This article does not calculate a present balance, assume both formulations should be added together, or report payment or contempt as having occurred. The listed September mention was still in the future at the source-research date.
Questions after compensation has been awarded
- What does the operative decree award, and what later order changes it?
- Has the required government certificate been obtained and served?
- Which accounting officer has the relevant duty?
- Do later interest directions agree, and what proves actual payment?
A Kenyan advocate should resolve these questions before a financial decision treats an award as immediately recoverable cash. A favourable judgment, an enforcement order and money received are separate milestones.
Screening is not a recovery guarantee
ArdhiScore screening can help organise available source-linked records, dates and questions for professional enquiry. It cannot calculate a disputed decretal balance, guarantee payment or stay protection, certify title or boundaries, or replace an official search and Kenyan legal advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
This is historical analysis, not legal advice. It uses retained research dated 11 September 2026; unresolved numerical wording and later compliance remain explicit limits.
Primary decisions
Read the 2024 appeal judgment: paragraphs 81–100 and 101–115. Supreme Court ruling: paragraphs 11–12. 2025 mandamus ruling: paragraphs 76–83. 2026 ruling: paragraph 20 and final disposition.