Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (plaint dated 9th May 2022)

County Government of Kakamega v Munzala (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5393 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 July 2025
2,823 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The County Government of Kakamega, as lessor, sued for forfeiture of the lease over parcel Kakamega/Municipality/Block II/73 on account of the defendant's failure to develop the land. The lease was registered on 22nd February 2011 with a special condition requiring submission of building plans within six months and development within 24 months, with a re-entry default clause. The defendant did not enter appearance or file a defence, and the suit proceeded by viva voce evidence from the plaintiff's sole witness, a member of the county's Appeals Panel constituted under Gazette Notice No. 103 of 30th December 2020. The evidence showed the defendant appeared before the Appeals Panel through counsel, was recommended for repossession, and received a repossession notice served by WhatsApp on 31st January 2022. The court framed two issues: breach of lease terms and entitlement to forfeiture. It held that even in an undefended suit the plaintiff bore the burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act, and that the plaintiff had discharged it. Applying Article 60 of the Constitution and sections 12(9), 31, 73 and 75 of the Land Act, the court held that allocated public land must be developed and reverts automatically where development conditions are breached, that the development covenant is fundamental, and that the plaintiff had followed the required pre-forfeiture procedure, including notice and a hearing. The claim was allowed and the lease was ordered forfeited. The judgment is dated 16th July 2025 and was delivered by A. Nyukuri J at Kakamega.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the defendant breached the terms of the lease issued to him
  2. 2.Whether an order of forfeiture of lease in regard to the suit property should issue

Key legal issues

#
01

Breach of lease development conditions

Holding

The defendant breached Special Condition No. 2 by failing to submit building plans within six months and failing to develop the suit property for over ten years from registration of the lease

Reasoning

The lease of 22nd February 2011 required submission of building plans within six months and development within 24 months. The property remained undeveloped for over ten years when the suit was filed. The court found breach of a fundamental term, entitling the lessor to exercise its right of forfeiture.

p. 6
02

Compliance with the forfeiture procedure

Holding

The plaintiff complied with the statutory pre-forfeiture procedure through newspaper notice, WhatsApp service of the repossession notice, and hearing before the Appeals Panel

Reasoning

Section 75 of the Land Act requires not less than thirty days' notice specifying the breach. The plaintiff published notice on 16th February 2021 and served a repossession notice on 31st January 2022; the defendant was heard by the Appeals Panel and had over thirty days to remedy the breach but did not. The procedure under sections 73 to 77 was therefore satisfied.

p. 6
03

Public land must be held productively and not for speculation

Holding

Public land allocated to private individuals must be developed; undeveloped allocation is against the constitutional principles of land policy and public interest

Reasoning

Article 60(1) requires land to be held, used and managed equitably, efficiently, productively and sustainably. Section 12(9) of the Land Act provides automatic reversion where allocated land is not developed. The court held that undeveloped allocations defeat the development purpose of the lease and the land reverts to Government.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where allocated public land is not developed in accordance with the terms of the lease, it automatically reverts to the national or county government
  • The covenant to develop allocated public land is fundamental to the lease, and breach entitles the lessor to forfeiture if the statutory procedure is followed
  • Even in an undefended suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The lease in respect of land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/Block II/73 is forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the land
  2. 2.Claim allowed as prayed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Land Act and Article 162(2) Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (not expressly cited; suit founded on the Land Act)

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Consequently, an order is hereby issued that the lease in respect to land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/ Block II/73 is hereby forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the land.
p. 6Final orders - forfeiture of lease
Ultimately, I find and hold that the plaintifi has proved its case on the required standard and its claim is hereby allowed as prayed.
p. 6Disposition - claim allowed
It is against public interest and the Constitution to allow a scarce resource like land to lie abandoned in perpetuity.
p. 4Public interest in productive use of land
Section 107 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proof of a claim on the claimant, whether or not the claim is defended.
p. 3Burden of proof in undefended suits

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Munzala (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (plaint dated 9th May 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5393/eng@2025-07-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.