Economy

Court rejects evidence in Sh1bn Wilson Airport housing suit

AIRPORT

Aerial view of Wilson Airport in Nairobi on August 9, 2016. PHOTO | SALATON NJAU | NMG

The Supreme Court has rejected an application by a real estate developer to introduce new evidence in a case in which he is claiming close to Sh1billion in damages for being stopped from constructing residential houses near Wilson Airport in 2008 over the safety concerns.

Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira, had moved to the Supreme Court hoping to overturn decisions by both the High Court and the Appellate court.

He had sought to present more evidence showing that the project had been approved by the National Environment Management Authority(Nema), the National Lands Commission (NLC), and the County government of Nairobi.

While dismissing the application, the top court wondered why it took more than four years for the developer to obtain the evidence. The judges said there was no explanation for the delay and allowing him to table the evidence would prejudice Kenya Airports Authority (KAA).

“If this so-called additional evidence was indeed crucial to the Applicant’s case, why did he have to wait till the 11th hour to seek to introduce it? The bodies from which the documentary have been obtained have been in existence way before the commencement of the proceedings in the High Court, what prevented the Applicant from obtaining this evidence from them?” the Judges led by Chief Justice Martha Koome posed.

The court said Mr Kanyuira was attempting to make a fresh case in the petition or fill up omissions or patch up his case.

Mr Kanyuira is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel situated some 400 metres from Wilson Airport. He started the construction in 2007 after taking a Sh67.6 million loan.

He was, however, stopped on grounds that the buildings were dangerous to the safety and use of Wilson Airport. He said the 24 residential maisonettes were almost complete and that he had sold some to third parties.

KAA argued that it intended to upgrade Wilson Airport from category 2B to 2C but he claims this was not a sufficient basis to stop the construction.