Whether the trial court erred in law and fact by undervaluing the Appellant’s claim
18.The court has considered the material and submissions on record on this issue. The Appellant faulted the trial court for failing to properly appreciate the valuation figures and failing to take into account the Appellant’s valuation reports proved at the trial in consequence whereof the court ended undervaluing his claim for compensation. It is evident from the material on record that the Appellant was mainly aggrieved by the decision of the trial court to rely upon the valuation reports presented by the Respondent rather than his own reports.
19.The Appellant was aggrieved by the trial court’s reliance on a value of Kshs. 600,000/= per acre as opposed to his stated value of Kshs. 1,500,000/=. He was also aggrieved by the court’s adoption of 30% of the value of the land as compensation for limited loss of use as opposed to 100% of the value of the land. The Appellant submitted that the trial court ought to have applied the rate of 100% as was applied in the case of Tennyson Nyinge Chilyalya & 60 Others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd  eKLR and not the 30% applied in the earlier case of Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v James Kinoti M’twerandu  eKLR.
20.The Respondent, on the other hand, fully supported the decision of the trial court. It was submitted that the value of the trees and the beehives was determined by the designated officers pursuant to a joint valuation conducted by consent of the parties. It was submitted that the parties were legally bound by the terms of the consent. The Respondent further submitted that the value of the affected land was freely negotiated by the parties and agreed upon at Kshs. 600,000/= per acre in consequence whereof the Appellant signed the wayleave forms. It was further submitted that the amount of Kshs. 309,600/= indicated in the wayleave form was calculated at the rate of 30% of the value of the 1.72 acres of the suit property which was affected by the project. It was disputed that the trial court erred either in law or in fact in making the award in the judgment.
21.In adopting what it considered to be the report of a joint valuation, the trial court held as follows:
22.There is no doubt from the material on record that prior to the hearing of the suit, the parties had recorded a consent on 21.08.2019 which stipulated, among other things, that:
23.The court finds absolutely no fault on the part of the trial court in its finding and holding on which valuation reports were to be relied upon with respect to the claim for compensation for trees and beehives. The trial court properly relied upon the reports prepared by the designated government officers. In fact, the minutes of the tallying exercise for the trees indicated that the Appellant was present. The court is unable to agree with the Appellant’s contention that a joint valuation was never undertaken at all.
24.On the issue of land valuation and the percentage of compensation for loss of user, the trial court held as follows:
25.The court finds no fault at all with the reasoning and finding of the trial court on the value of the land and the percentage of compensation. There was no valuation report which was presented by the Appellant at the trial on the value of the land. There was credible evidence on record to show that the parties had negotiated and agreed upon a value of Kshs.600,000/= per acre as a result of which the Appellant signed the Wayleave Acquisition Negotiation form at page 188 of the record of appeal. The said form indicates that both the initial offer and negotiated offer on the rate of compensation was 30%. The court is satisfied that if the Appellant considered a valuation of Kshs.600,000/= per acre to be reasonable on 30.07.2018 he could not validly turn around and unilaterally enhance it to Kshs. 1.5 million without involving the Respondent. The trial court was thus entitled to apply the rate of Kshs. 600,000/= per acre.
26.The mere fact that the judge in the Tennyson Nyinge Chilyachilya Case applied the rate of 100% for compensation does not necessarily mean that the judge in the James Kinoti M’twerandu Case was wrong in applying the rate of 30%. Both cases were decided by courts of the same status. The trial court was thus entitled to rely on either of them and could not be faulted for relying on one and leaving out the other. It is a matter of common knowledge that it would be impossible to apply both authorities to the same case.
b. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the appeal
27.The court has already found that there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the valuation figures and reports before it and as a result arrived at an undervaluation of the Appellant’s claim. The court has found that the trial court did not err in law and fact in awarding the Appellant the sum of Kshs. 956,130/= instead of the sum of Kshs. 18,237,000/= claimed in the plaint. It would, therefore, follow that the Appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the appeal, or any one of them.