A long-running compensation battle between a Mombasa-based company and the government has come to a close.
This is after the Court of Appeal dismissed Pentagon Communications Limited’s appeal over a disputed land award, bringing to an end years of legal wrangling rooted in the compulsory acquisition of land for a public road project.
Pentagon Communications had sought higher compensation after its 0.3325-hectare industrial plot in Miritini was acquired by the government in 2015 for the construction of the Mombasa Port Area Road Development Project—part of the Dongo Kundu Bypass and Kipevu Terminal Link Road.
The company argued that the Sh2.83 million awarded by the National Land Commission (NLC) was grossly undervalued compared to what other landowners had received for similar acquisitions in the area.
In its 2019 case before the Environment and Land Court (ELC), Pentagon asked for Sh24 million, plus 12 per cent annual interest backdated to the date of acquisition.
But that claim was dismissed in 2022 when the ELC ruled the appeal had been filed late and without proper leave of the court.
That ruling was upheld on July 18, 2025, by a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Agnes Murgor, Dr Kibaya Imaana Laibuta and Ngenye-Macharia, which found no legal basis to interfere.
“There is no contestation that the appellant’s land was compulsorily acquired,” the judges stated.
“It is also not in contestation that NLC compensated the appellant to the tune of Sh2,829,000, which the appellant objected to as being too low.”
At the heart of the case was a procedural question: whether the dispute should have been filed as an appeal under Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act—subject to a 30-day deadline—or as a reference under Section 128 of the Land Act, which does not prescribe time limits.
Pentagon’s lawyer argued the case was not a typical appeal but a reference, and that the naming of the document as a “memorandum of appeal” should not have barred its hearing.
“The form and naming of the document did not change its nature,” he submitted, noting that no operational Land Acquisition Tribunal existed at the time.
But the court disagreed, stating that the NLC, in holding an inquiry and issuing an award, acted as a quasi-judicial tribunal.
Any challenge to that decision, the judges ruled, should have been treated as an appeal—and thus bound by time limits.
“The appellant cannot have his cake and eat it,” the court said.
“If indeed the appellant did not intend to file an appeal, nothing stopped it from filing a reference, whose form and format are different from a memorandum of appeal.”
The ruling also countered the Pentagon’s claim that it learned of the land acquisition informally.
The court pointed to Gazette Notices issued in early 2014 and a letter dated July 27, 2015, summoning the Pentagon for a hearing on August 5, 2015—an inquiry that resulted in the compensation award.
“It is therefore untrue that the appellant was not involved in, or notified of, the compulsory acquisition,” the court held.
The judges concluded that the company’s case collapsed on procedural grounds.
Because it had not sought leave to file the appeal out of time, the ELC lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. As such, the appeal was deemed “incompetent” and dismissed.
“No appeal should have been filed out of time without leave of the court,” the ruling read. “Such a filing renders the document so filed a nullity and of no legal consequence.”
The court made no order as to costs, noting that the National Land Commission did not participate in the appeal.
