County Government of Kakamega v Mitha & Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E032 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4481 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court forfeited a 25-year-old undeveloped lease, confirming that public land allocated but never developed reverts to government.
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
- 2.Whether the plaintiff deserves an order of forfeiture of lease regarding the suit property
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant breached the terms of the lease
The defendant breached Special Condition No. 2 of the lease by failing to submit building plans within six months and to develop the property within 24 months of registration of the lease; for 25 years the property remained vacant
The court found it not disputed that the lease was registered in 1996 requiring development plans within six months and development within 24 months. It was further not disputed that no development plans were ever submitted and the suit property remains vacant. DW1 conceded the defendant lacked financial capability and never submitted plans for approval. The court held this amounted to breach of a fundamental term of the lease, since allocation of public land is for sustainable development and not speculation.
Whether the plaintiff deserves an order of forfeiture of the lease
The plaintiff complied with the forfeiture procedure (Gazette and newspaper notices, service of repossession notice, opportunity to be heard before the Appeals Panel) and is entitled to forfeiture of the lease
Under sections 31, 73 and 75 of the Land Act, forfeiture requires notice of not less than 30 days specifying the breach and requiring remedy. The court found the defendant was informed through Gazette Notice and newspaper advertisements, was served the repossession notice by WhatsApp, and was given the opportunity to be heard before the Appeals Panel. The suit was filed more than 30 days after the notices, and the defendant, having no financial capacity, could not remedy the breach. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to the orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- Public land is allocated for sustainable development, not speculation, and the condition to develop is fundamental to the lease so that breach results in cancellation of the lease
- Where public land allocated to a private individual is not developed as required by the lease, the land automatically reverts to the national or county government
- Where a lessee breaches the terms of the lease and the lessor follows the correct forfeiture procedure, the lessor is entitled to an order cancelling the lease
Court orders
#- 1.Claim allowed - the lease in respect to land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/Block I/618 is forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the land
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 31, 73, 75 and 12(9) of the Land Act, 2012 - action for forfeiture of lease over public land allocated by lease
Relief refused
#Costs
No costs were sought by the plaintiff
Costs
No order as to costs
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.
Consequently, an order is hereby issued that the lease in respect to land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/ Block I/618 is hereby forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the land.
The condition to develop the land is fundamental to the lease, so that breach thereof results in cancellation of the lease.
Allocation of public land is not for speculative purposes. It is intended to enable sustainable development and where a lessee is unable to develop the same, it ought to be repossessed and allocated to those with the ability to develop the land.
I therefore find and hold 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
#Judgment records the plaint as dated 9th May 2022 but the pleading narrative states the suit was filed on 13th May 2022, and the defendant's defence is dated 28th October 2023 although hearing evidence dates are 2024; the plaintiff's newspaper notice inviting hearings is given as both 16th February 2021 and 5th October 2023
Paragraph numbering skips from 30 to 32; no paragraph 31 appears in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Mitha & Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E032 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4481/eng@2026-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.