County Government of Kakamega v Ali (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5417 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Kakamega ordered forfeiture of a lease because the owner left allocated public land undeveloped for over ten years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the defendant breached the terms of the lease issued to him
- 2.whether an order of forfeiture of lease in regard to the suit property should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant breached the terms of the lease
Yes - the defendant breached Special Condition No. 2 by failing to submit building plans within six months and to develop the land within 24 months of registration of the lease
The lease was registered on 4th October 2011 and required building plans within six months and completion of development within 24 months. The plaintiff's evidence, including the certificate of official search, the lease and the Appeals Panel Committee report excerpt, showed no development on the suit property more than ten years after the certificate of lease was issued. The court therefore found a fundamental breach entitling the lessor to exercise its right of forfeiture.
Whether the plaintiff complied with the statutory forfeiture procedure
Yes - notice was given by newspaper publication on 16th February 2021 and by WhatsApp on 31st January 2022, and the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard before the gazetted Appeals Panel
Section 75 of the Land Act requires thirty days' notice specifying the breach and requiring remedy and compensation before forfeiture. The plaintiff published a notice inviting affected persons to be heard, constituted an Appeals Panel, served a repossession notice on 31st January 2022, and filed suit on 13th May 2022, by which time the defendant had more than thirty days to remedy the breach but did not. The court was satisfied the required procedure was followed.
Whether forfeiture of the lease should issue
Yes - the lease over Kakamega Municipality/Block III/296 is forfeited on account of lack of development
Article 60(1) requires land to be held and used equitably, efficiently, productively and sustainably, and section 12(9) of the Land Act provides that allocated land not developed in accordance with the lease automatically reverts to the national or county government. Since the defendant fundamentally breached the development covenant and the plaintiff followed the forfeiture procedure, the court declared the lease forfeited as sought in the plaint.
Legal principles established
#- Allocation of public land is conditional; if the lessee fails to develop the land as required by the lease, the land reverts to the national or county government
- The covenant to develop is fundamental to a lease of allocated public land and breach of it entails forfeiture
- Forfeiture of a lease for breach of covenant requires prior notice of not less than thirty days specifying the breach and requiring remedy and compensation
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is allowed as prayed
- 2.An order that the lease in respect of land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/Block III/296 is forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the property
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land; pleaded claims founded on Article 60(1) of the Constitution and the Land Act, 2012 (sections 12(9), 31, 73 and 75)
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.
In the end, I am satisfied that the plaintifi has proved its case on the required standard and the same is hereby allowed as prayed. Consequently, an order is hereby issued that the lease in respect to land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/ Block III/296 is hereby forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of that property.
Allocation of public land is for sustainable development purposes and not for speculation.
Where public land allocated to a private individual is not developed as required in the lease instrument, the land automatically reverts back to the National or County Government as the case may be.
The covenant to develop the land is inherently fundamental to the lease instrument that breach of the same would automatically cancel the lease.
I am therefore satisfied that the plaintifi complied with the required procedure in exercising its right of forfeiture and is therefore entitled to the orders sought in the plaint.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the defendant and the full case number of the suit are not stated anywhere in the judgment as provided; the parties are referred to only as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'.
Paragraph numbering in the analysis skips from paragraph 21 to paragraph 23; there is no paragraph 22.
The court applies Nyoro v Karinstreap (a case about lessor's forfeiture rights generally) and cites Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi v Mtana Lewa, whose name is inconsistently spelled in the judgment ('Mwagandi' and 'Mwangandi').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Ali (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5417 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Pleadings dated 9th May 2022 (plaint; number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5417/eng@2025-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.