The Kenyan government will pay more than Sh2 billion in compensation to the owners of Nakumatt Ukay Mall, which was demolished in 2018 by a multi-agency team.
Justice Oguttu Mboya ruled that four state agencies—the Office of the Attorney General, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), the Water Resource Management Authority, and the Nairobi City County—acted arbitrarily in depriving the mall’s owners of their property.
The National Youth Service (NYS), which was involved in the demolition of properties allegedly built on riparian land, was spared from the compensation costs.
The court ordered the four agencies to jointly pay Kental Enterprises Ltd, the company that owned the demolished mall, a total of Sh2,013,500,000 for the value of the property. Additionally, they were directed to pay Sh50 million in exemplary damages.
“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the petitioner’s rights to acquire and own property without arbitrarily being deprived of the same as guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya was violated by the State following the demolition of the building,” Justice Mboya ruled.
The judge further found that the demolition process was flawed, describing it as an “arbitrary and compulsory” deprivation of property. The compensation will also attract an interest of 14 percent per year from January 22, 2019, when the lawsuit was filed.
Nakumatt Ukay Mall, located in Westlands, near Westgate Mall, was demolished following claims that it had been built on riparian land and that its owners had illegally redirected the Kibarage River, which ran beneath it.
City Hall played a key role in the demolition. In May 2018, it issued an enforcement notice to Nakumatt Ukay’s owners, citing illegal alterations to the building. The notice demanded that they cease further developments and submit structural drawings for approval.
In response, the mall’s owners provided the required documents, showing they had received the necessary approvals from the county government. However, in July 2018, City Hall introduced new claims that the building had encroached on riparian land, shifting the basis of the demolition.
With the court’s latest ruling, the case highlights the legal and financial consequences of government-led demolitions without proper due process.
