County Government of Kakamega & 1 other v Munyao Sila & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that Kakamega County must compensate landowners whose property it took without following compulsory acquisition procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property was public land and the respondents' leasehold title illegal
The appeal fails; the respondents proved legal ownership to the required standard.
To establish public land, the appellants had to prove the property was unalienated government land at the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution or that the allotment by the county predecessor was fraudulent. A survey plan, certificate of lease dated 4th July 2002 to the first allottee, and transfer to the respondents showed lawful alienation. The appellants produced only unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and no contrary valuation or evidence.
Whether the appellants compulsorily acquired the suit property without due process
The ELC correctly found that the appellants, by forceful taking of possession, in effect compulsorily acquired the property without following the procedure under Article 67 and the National Land Commission Act.
It was not disputed that the appellants approved the wall, then demolished it and incorporated the parcel into Bukhungu Stadium as parking. The court held the appellants short-circuited the compulsory acquisition process and took the law into their own hands; having created the situation themselves, they cannot plead the NLC's exclusive mandate to defeat compensation. Had they been private parties they would have been liable in conversion or trespass.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the compensation ordered
Yes; the award was supported by the only valuation evidence before the trial court, which the appellants did not rebut.
A valuation report by Odongo Kabita & Company Valuers assessed the wall damage at Kshs 2,400,000 and the plot at Kshs 40,500,000. The appellants adduced no alternative valuation. The trial court was entitled to rely on the only evidence placed before it, and this Court could not fault the award.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging that land is public land must prove it was unalienated government land at the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution or that the allotment process was fraudulent or unprocedural; failure of proof leaves the registered title protected under Article 40(1).
- A public entity that forcefully takes possession of private land without involving the National Land Commission cannot later complain that a court assessing compensation usurped the Commission's mandate; it must compensate the owner fairly.
- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal (duty to re-analyze and re-assess the evidence); Article 40 of the Constitution engaged on compensation for property
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega & 1 other v Munyao Sila & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from ELRC petition at Kakamega (petition dated 9th November, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/344/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.