Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedUndated amended constitutional petition filed 1/07/2024· [2026] KEELC 1008 (KLR)

Kisangi v Member of County Assembly Mlolongo Syokimau Ward & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 11 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 1008 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 February 2026
AKA. Y. Koross
3,452 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Machakos court ordered the county government to pay Kshs 4.75 million for unlawfully taking private land to build ward offices.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, administrator of the estate of her late husband Sammy Kisangi Mutie and registered owner of title no. Athi River/Athi River Block 18/101 (formerly plot no. 135(406) Mavoko Land Development Limited), challenged the respondents' entry onto, acquisition of, and development of the suit property in April 2020 for the construction of the Syokimau Mlolongo Ward offices, without her consent, without engaging the National Land Commission (the interested party), and without following the compulsory acquisition procedure in Part VIII of the Land Act. She sought declarations of violation of Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution and Sections 107, 107A, 120 and 131 of the Land Act, a permanent injunction, compensation for the rights violations, and costs. None of the respondents filed a response; only the 2nd respondent filed a notice to act in person. The court, per A. Y. Koross J, held that the petitioner discharged the burden of proof through unchallenged evidence of ownership and the respondents' structure, and found that the respondents arbitrarily appropriated the suit property, violating Articles 40 and 47, usurping the NLC's functions under Articles 67 and 249, and contravening Part VIII of the Land Act. A court-ordered valuation fixed the land at Kshs. 2,750,000/- and the developments at Kshs. 3,800,000/-. Balancing justice with the public-serving developments, the court declined a permanent injunction and instead declared the violations, awarded Kshs. 2,750,000/- for the land value (excluding developments), Kshs. 2,000,000/- in damages for the constitutional violations, directed transfer of the property to the respondents within six months of compliance, and awarded the petitioner costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitioner proved ownership of the suit property and unlawful acquisition by the respondents

Holding

Yes - the petitioner discharged the burden of proof; the respondents unlawfully seized possession without following Part VIII of the Land Act or engaging the National Land Commission, violating Articles 40 and 47 and usurping the IP's functions under Articles 67 and 249.

Reasoning

The petitioner produced a certificate of lease, a map, a demand letter, the plot certificate in her late husband's name and a certificate of confirmation of grant. Photographs showed the respondents' building embossed with the MCA's office names. This evidence was unchallenged, the respondents having failed to respond. The court traced the compulsory acquisition procedure under Sections 107-121 of the Land Act and found no gazette notices, valuation, inquiry or engagement of the NLC.

p. 5
02

What remedies flow from the established violations

Holding

Compensation of Kshs. 2,750,000/- for the land value (excluding developments), damages of Kshs. 2,000,000/- for the constitutional violations, and transfer of the suit property to the respondents upon compliance.

Reasoning

A court-ordered valuation fixed the land at Kshs. 2,750,000/- and the respondents' developments at Kshs. 3,800,000/-. Balancing justice and the public-serving developments already erected, the court chose compensation for the land value plus damages for the Article 40 and 47 violations, with the property to be transferred to the respondents after payment.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The burden of proof remains with the petitioner even in the absence of rebuttal by the respondents.
  • The State may only deprive a person of property through compulsory acquisition in conformity with Article 40(3) of the Constitution and the statutory procedure.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the respondents' action of entry, acquisition and development of plot no. 135(406) Mavoko Land Development Limited, now Athi River/Athi River Block18/101, contravenes Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution and Sections 107, 107A, 120 and 131 of the Land Act.
  2. 2.The respondents shall promptly pay the petitioner Kshs. 2,750,000/- being the value of the petitioner's plot, exclusive of developments.
  3. 3.Damages of Kshs. 2,000,000/- awarded to the petitioner, payable by the respondents.
  4. 4.Upon compliance with orders (b) and (c), the parties shall, within 6 months thereafter, transfer the suit property to the respondents or such entity as they nominate.
  5. 5.The petitioner is awarded costs, which the respondents shall bear.
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 40, 47, 67 and 249 of the Constitution of Kenya; Part VIII of the Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kisangi v Member of County Assembly Mlolongo Syokimau Ward & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 11 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 1008 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Undated amended constitutional petition filed 1/07/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1008/eng@2026-02-24

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