County Government of Kakamega v Mulyolo (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4123 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kakamega's county government lost its bid to repossess leased land because it couldn't produce the lease document showing what terms were broken.
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
The court could not find a breach because the plaintiff did not produce the lease instrument; the defendant demonstrated possession, structures, a wall, and payment of rates
The plaintiff's claim for forfeiture was predicated on breach of express or implied covenants in the lease. However, the plaintiff did not produce the lease instrument as an exhibit, making it impossible for the court to ascertain the terms allegedly breached. The defendant, on the other hand, showed he remained in possession, had put up structures and a wall, and continued paying rates. The claim therefore failed on the required standard of proof.
Whether an order of forfeiture should issue
Forfeiture was refused; the plaintiff failed to prove its claim to the required standard and the suit was dismissed with costs
Although sections 31, 73 and 75 of the Land Act permit forfeiture of a lease for breach of covenant after due notice, the right of forfeiture may only be enforced where breach is proved. The plaintiff failed to prove breach since the lease instrument was not produced. In the circumstances the court was not persuaded that the orders sought deserved to issue, and dismissed the suit with costs to the defendant.
Reversion of undeveloped allocated public land under section 12(9) of the Land Act
The court acknowledged that undeveloped allocated public land automatically reverts to the national or county government, but this could not assist the plaintiff without proof of the lease terms
The court set out the statutory and constitutional framework: public land is allocated for sustainable development, not speculation, and section 12(9) of the Land Act provides for automatic reversion where allocated land is not developed in accordance with lease terms. This principle, drawn from Article 60 and case law, framed the legal background but did not displace the plaintiff's burden of proving the specific covenant breached.
Legal principles established
#- Where public land allocated to a private individual is not developed in accordance with the lease, the land automatically reverts to the national or county government (s.12(9) Land Act)
- Forfeiture means losing a right, privilege or property without compensation as a result of breaching a legal or contractual obligation or covenant
- The burden of proving breach of the lease rests on the lessor, who must produce the lease instrument to establish the terms alleged to have been breached
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the plaintiff's suit
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (claim for forfeiture of lease over public land), pursuant to sections 31, 73 and 75 of the Land Act
Relief refused
#Order that the lease in respect of land parcel Kakamega/Municipality/Block I/600 be forfeited on account of lack of development
The plaintiff failed to produce the lease instrument, so the court could not ascertain the terms of the lease and whether they were breached; the defendant demonstrated possession, structures on the land, and payment of rates
Costs
The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant
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.
I find and hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove its claim against the defendant on the required standard and I hereby dismiss the plaintiff’s suit with costs to the defendant.
In the absence of the lease instrument, this court cannot ascertain the terms of the lease and whether the same was breached or not.
The defendant has demonstrated possession of the suit property where he has put up structures and a wall, and continues to pay rates as and when they fall due.
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.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The date of judgment is stated as 1st July 2026, which appears to be a future/erroneous date given the plaint was filed in 2022 and submissions dated October 2025
The plaintiff's case name for the authority is inconsistent between the submissions and the court's analysis - 'Mwagandi' vs 'Mwangandi'
The numbering of paragraphs skips from paragraph 30 to paragraph 32; paragraph 31 is missing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Mulyolo (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 9th May 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4123/eng@2026-07-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.