Supreme court freezes recovery of Sh1.5billion Ruaraka schools’ compensation
It also pauses related investigations, arrests, charges or prosecutions arising from the disputed payment pending further directions from the Supreme Court. EACC had written to the two companies and several former government officials, including former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i, former Immigration Principal Secretary Belio Kipsang and former NLC chairman Muhammad Swazuri, demanding repayment of the money.
The Supreme Court has temporarily suspended the execution of a Court of Appeal judgment that declared illegal the payment of Sh1.5 billion in compensation to two companies linked to the late businessman Francis Mburu over 13.5 acres of land occupied by two public schools in Nairobi.
A full bench of the apex court issued interim orders after Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited moved to challenge the July 3 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had paved the way for the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to recover the money.
The Supreme Court certified the companies’ application as urgent and halted implementation of the appellate court’s decision pending the hearing and determination of their motion.
“The notice of motion dated July 30, 2026 is certified as urgent. Pending the hearing and determination of the motion, there shall be an interim order staying the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated July 3, 2026,” the court ruled.
The case will be mentioned on August 28 for further directions.
The interim order effectively puts on hold efforts to recover the Sh1.5 billion already paid as compensation for the land on which Drive-In Primary School and Ruaraka High School stand.
It also pauses related investigations, arrests, charges or prosecutions arising from the disputed payment pending further directions from the Supreme Court.
The dispute dates back to the 1980s and centres on whether the companies voluntarily surrendered the 13.5 acres for public use when seeking approval to subdivide a larger parcel of land.
The companies maintain that the courts wrongly concluded that the land had been surrendered, arguing that there is no registered instrument formally transferring or surrendering the property.
They contend that treating planning approval as proof of surrender would amount to compulsory acquisition of private property without compensation, contrary to constitutional protections of property rights.
The firms have also accused the Court of Appeal of failing to properly apply Article 40 of the Constitution, which protects the right to property from arbitrary deprivation.
According to the companies, the National Land Commission (NLC) lawfully commenced compulsory acquisition proceedings after establishing that the two schools occupied privately owned land. They further argue that the NLC approved an additional Sh1.769 billion in compensation, which has not been paid.
The additional payment was stopped in 2018 pending the outcome of the legal dispute.
EACC, however, has opposed the appeal, arguing that the constitutional questions now being raised were not part of the original dispute before the Environment and Land Court or the Court of Appeal.
The anti-graft agency maintains that the lower courts primarily determined factual questions, particularly whether the companies had surrendered the land as a condition for approval of a subdivision scheme lodged in 1982.
EACC argues that the firms are attempting to transform factual disputes into constitutional issues in an effort to persuade the Supreme Court to reconsider findings already made by the lower courts.
“Having made concurrent findings of fact on that issue, the petition of appeal seeks to invite this court to re-evaluate the evidence and interfere with those findings, contrary to its appellate jurisdiction,” EACC said.
In its July 3 judgment, the Court of Appeal found that correspondence contained in the court record supported the conclusion that the land had been voluntarily surrendered for public use.
The appellate court also noted that Drive-In Primary School and Ruaraka High School were established on the disputed land in 1984 and 1987 respectively, yet the companies did not seek to reclaim the property for decades.
It consequently upheld the finding that the Sh1.5 billion compensation paid in 2017 was illegal.
Following the judgment, EACC wrote to the two companies and several former government officials, including former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i, former Immigration Principal Secretary Belio Kipsang and former NLC chairman Muhammad Swazuri, demanding repayment of the money.
The Supreme Court’s interim orders have now halted those recovery efforts.
