Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Mombasa's court struck down a huge land rates increase because the county skipped valuation rolls and proper public participation, and ordered refunds.
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 Respondent complied with the constitutional and statutory frameworks in the imposition of increased rates
- 2.Whether the Petitioner was given adequate notice for the increment of the land rates (public participation)
- 3.Whether the Respondent complied with the Rating Act (Cap 267) and the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266)
- 4.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition
- 5.What orders should issue in respect of the costs of the petition
Key legal issues
#Compliance with constitutional and statutory frameworks in imposing increased land rates
The Respondent did not comply; the variation from 14% to 35% was unlawful, unconstitutional and void ab initio.
Under Article 209(3)(a) county governments may impose property rates, but the power is not absolute and must adhere to public participation and statutory valuation processes. The Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) and Rating Act (Cap 267) required preparation and publication of a draft valuation roll, notice inviting objections, and a valuation court. The Respondent prepared no valuation or supplementary roll and gave less than 14 days' notice, so the increment was unenforceable.
Adequacy of public participation and notice for the rates increment
The notice was not reasonable as it gave the petitioner less than 14 days to participate, and the Respondent did not demonstrate compliance with the principles of public participation.
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence including Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, British American Tobacco, Sonko and Balambala, public participation must be meaningful, purposive and not illusory, with reasonable notice and genuine engagement. Article 10 national values are binding and enforceable, not merely aspirational. The short notice and failure to engage the petitioner fell short of this standard.
Applicable statutory regime after repeal of the Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act
The repealed statutes apply because the cause of action accrued before their repeal by the National Rating Act (Act No. 15 of 2024) on 24th December 2024.
The court observed that the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) and Rating Act (Cap 267) were repealed with effect from 24th December 2024. Since the impugned variation took effect on 13th April 2023, before repeal, and the law does not act retrospectively, the procedural requirements of the repealed statutes - preparation of valuation rolls, objections and a valuation court - governed the impugned increment.
Satisfaction of the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold
The Petitioner satisfied the threshold by pleading the constitutional provisions infringed and the manner of infringement.
The petitioner pleaded specific Articles (10, 40, 47, 48, 50, 201, 209 and 210(1)) and explained the manner of infringement in the pleadings, satisfying the requirement in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic that a petitioner set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provisions infringed, and the manner of infringement, enabling the court to grant the declarations sought.
Legal principles established
#- County governments cannot arbitrarily impose new rates or alter existing ones without a valid valuation roll and proper public participation.
- Where the cause of action accrued before repeal of the Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act, the repealed statutes govern, as law does not act in retrospect.
- A county government demanding increased rates must demonstrate that it prepared valuation rolls or supplementary valuation rolls.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the actions of the Respondent in unilaterally and retrospectively increasing the Petitioner's annual land rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= without due process are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and that the Respondent's demand letter dated 18th August 2024 requiring payment of Kshs. 2,030,689/= within seven (7) days is irregular, unconstitutional, and incapable of enforcement in law
- 2.Declaration that the Respondent, by its conduct, violated the Petitioner's rights and legitimate expectations under Articles 10, 40, 47, 48, 50, and 201 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
- 3.Order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent, its servants, agents, or any person acting under its authority from demanding, levying, recovering, distressing for, or in any manner enforcing payment of the impugned enhanced land rates unless and until full compliance with the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) (repealed), the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, and the Constitution
- 4.Judicial review order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Respondent varying the Petitioner's annual rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= as unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally unfair
- 5.Order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to strictly comply with the National Rating Act, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Constitution before imposing or enforcing any future variation of land rates
- 6.Order directing the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner all monies paid pursuant to the unlawful increment, including Kshs. 2,230,200/= remitted on 14th May 2025, or in the alternative, credit the same towards the Petitioner's lawful rates payable in subsequent financial years
- 7.Costs of the petition to the petitioner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23(1), 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
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.
The upshot of the above is that the respondent did not comply with the requirements of the law of rating and therefore the petition is merited and I do grant orders as follows:
This court grants a declaration that the actions of the Respondent in unilaterally and retrospectively increasing the Petitioner's annual land rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= without due process are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio
Lastly, an order directing the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner all monies paid pursuant to the unlawful increment, including the sum of Kshs. 2,230,200/= remitted on 14th May 2025, or in the alternative, credit the same towards the Petitioner's lawful rates payable in subsequent financial years. Costs of this Petition to the petitioner.
It is trite that County governments cannot arbitrarily impose new rates or alter existing ones without a valid valuation roll and proper public participation.
I do find that the respondent has not demonstrated that he complied with the principles of public participation.
by the time of repeal, the cause of action had accrued and due to the fact that law does not act in retrospect, the applicable law are the repealed statutes.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not print a case/petition number anywhere on its face.
Internal inconsistency in the amount said to have been remitted on 14th May 2025: the prayer pleads Kshs. 2,230,200/= while paragraph 14 refers to Kshs. 3,717,000/=.
The date of the impugned increment is inconsistently stated: the variation is said to have occurred as from 13th April 2023 pursuant to the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022, yet the petitioner relies on the Mombasa County Finance Act, 2023 as the applicable statute.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4324/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.