County Government of Taita Taveta v Development & 4 others; Council of Governors (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7275 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled the national government's 30-year lease tender for Bachuma Livestock Quarantine Station because it bypassed Taita Taveta County.
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 Respondents' actions violated Articles 10, 153(4)(a), 179, 186, 187 and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution as well as Section 87 of the County Governments Act (2012)
- 2.Whether the purpose for which the Bachuma Livestock Quarantine Station (BLQS) was established creates a conflict between the National Government function and County Government function thus posing a threat to devolution
- 3.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents' actions violated constitutional provisions on devolution and public participation
Yes - the tender proceeded without public participation and encroached on devolved county functions
Article 186(1) assigns functions per the Fourth Schedule; agriculture and allied livestock functions are reserved to counties, with the National Government holding only a policy role. Cooperation under Article 189 and public participation under Article 10 and Section 87 of the County Governments Act were mandatory. Proceeding without consulting the County or the public breached these provisions, as supported by Supreme Court authority on subsidiarity and mutual respect between levels of government.
Whether the establishment of the BLQS creates a conflict between national and county functions threatening devolution
Yes - utilizing the Station to the exclusion of the County poses a threat to devolution
Although the BLQS predates the 2010 Constitution, Article 63(2) vests public land in the County Government in trust for residents, and Articles 186 and the Fourth Schedule allocate agriculture-related functions to counties. The Respondents could not rely on historical reservation and occupation; they were bound to respect devolution and comply with the Constitution when exercising their functions.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially - declarations, inhibition and certiorari granted; mandamus for transfer of the farm refused
Since breaches were demonstrated, the court invoked Article 23(3) to grant appropriate remedies. However, the mandamus sought unconditional transfer of the farm without evidence that the National Land Commission, which has constitutional responsibility over public land, had been engaged; relying on the NLC advisory opinion and related authority, that relief could not be granted in the manner sought.
Legal principles established
#- Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule reserves agriculture and allied functions such as livestock breeding and management to County Governments, with the National Government retaining only a policy function
- Proceeding with a tender affecting devolved functions without public participation violates Articles 10, 153(4)(a), 174, 186, 187 of the Constitution and Section 87 of the County Governments Act
- Utilization of the BLQS to the exclusion of the County Government poses a threat to devolution
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the invitation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development for Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/01/2024/2025 contravenes Articles 60, 62, 186, 187 and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution and is therefore null and void
- 2.A declaration that by publishing and/or countenancing the tender the Respondents failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution as required at Article 153(2) of the Constitution
- 3.A declaration that the tender invitation contravenes the principle of public participation under Article 10 of the Constitution and Section 87 of the County Government Act (2012)
- 4.An order of Inhibition restraining the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development from implementing, awarding and/or actualizing Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/01/2024/2025
- 5.An order of Certiorari quashing Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/01/2024/2025
- 6.Each party to bear own costs of the Petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 35 of the Intergovernmental Relations Act (intergovernmental dispute referred to court after failed resolution); Articles 23(3), 165 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Order of Mandamus directing the Respondents to facilitate the unconditional transfer of Bachuma LMD Farm to the Petitioner
The Petitioner had not tendered any evidence demonstrating that the 3rd Respondent (National Land Commission) had been engaged in respect of the transfer
Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner
The court instead ordered each party to bear its own costs
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the Petition.
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, the Petition dated 11th September 2024 is hereby allowed in the following terms
Inhibition be and is hereby issued restraining the ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development from implementing, awarding and/or actualizing Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/01/2024/2025
Certiorari be and is hereby issued quashing Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/10/2024/2025 inviting Bids for the Lease of Bachuma Livestock Quarantine Sation
Each party to bear own costs of the Petition.
Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule has clearly delineated the functions and Agriculture, along with its allied functions like livestock breeding and management or crop husbandry are a reserve of the County Government
Article 63(2) of the Constitution of Kenya stipulates that public land shall vest in and be held by County Government in trust for the people resident in the said County
Issues in the judgment
#Tender number is inconsistently stated within the judgment: most references use Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/01/2024/2025 but one passage refers to Tender No. Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/01/2023/2025
Supporting affidavits are described as sworn on 11th September 2024 and 20th August 2025, i.e. one affidavit dated nearly a year after the Petition and one stated as sworn on a date preceding the judgment but described inconsistently; also the Replying Affidavit is described both as 'sworn by Hon. Jonathan Mueke, P.S' (undated) and later as 'sworn by Hon. Jonathan Mueke on 3rd July 2025'
The Petition and the final orders differ in the declaration wording: the Petition cites Article 153(2)(a) while the final orders cite Article 153(2), and the certiorari order in the final orders recites the tender number as Moald/SDA/BLQS/IT/10/2024/2025
The Petition lists the 1st and 2nd Respondents among parties whose case is opposed, but the judgment header records opposition by the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents only; the 3rd Respondent (National Land Commission) filed submissions denying cause of action against it yet is the very body whose engagement the court found unproven
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Taita Taveta v Development & 4 others; Council of Governors (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 11th September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7275/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.