Trader seeks Sh1bn at Supreme Court over Wilson Airport houses

supreme
supreme

What you need to know:

  • Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira moved to the Supreme Court after his case was dismissed by both the High Court and the Appellate court.
  • 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 borrowing a loan of 67.6 million.

A real estate developer who was stopped from constructing residential houses near Wilson Airport in 2008 over the safety of airlines has moved to the Supreme Court seeking close to Sh1 billion in compensation over the stalled project.

Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira moved to the Supreme Court after his case was dismissed by both the High Court and the Appellate court.

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 borrowing a loan of 67.6 million.

The development was, however stopped on grounds that the buildings were dangerous to the safety and use of Wilson Airport. He says 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 sufficient basis to stop the construction.

He moved to court seeking compensation of Sh992 million but the case was dismissed on October 14, 2010. He filed an appeal but it was equally dismissed. The court said he should have sought approval from Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) before embarking on the construction.

“We find that indeed, the appellant was in the wrong for neglecting to obtain the necessary approval before embarking on his project. We find that he was solely to blame for the loss that befell him, as he deliberately aggravated his loss by failing to heed the warning given by the respondent (KAA),” Justices Alnashir Visram, Wanjiru Karanja and Festus Azangalala ruled in 2017.

The court noted that the developer had been offered a parcel of land elsewhere so that the matter could be solved amicably, adding that the trial judge had properly balanced the public’s rights to safety and security and his rights to enjoy the property.

PAYE Tax Calculator

Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.