County Government of Kakamega & another v Sila & another (Civil Appeal E033 of 2021) [2026] KECA 344 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that Kakamega County must compensate landowners whose property it took without following compulsory acquisition procedures.
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 suit parcel of land is public land and whether the leasehold title possessed by the respondent is illegal.
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant breached the law by compulsorily acquiring the suit property from the respondent without following the due process.
- 3.Whether the respondents were entitled to the compensation that was ordered by the trial court.
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property was public land and the respondents' leasehold title illegal
The appeal fails; the respondents proved legal ownership to the required standard.
To establish public land, the appellants had to prove the property was unalienated government land at the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution or that the allotment by the county predecessor was fraudulent. A survey plan, certificate of lease dated 4th July 2002 to the first allottee, and transfer to the respondents showed lawful alienation. The appellants produced only unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and no contrary valuation or evidence.
Whether the appellants compulsorily acquired the suit property without due process
The ELC correctly found that the appellants, by forceful taking of possession, in effect compulsorily acquired the property without following the procedure under Article 67 and the National Land Commission Act.
It was not disputed that the appellants approved the wall, then demolished it and incorporated the parcel into Bukhungu Stadium as parking. The court held the appellants short-circuited the compulsory acquisition process and took the law into their own hands; having created the situation themselves, they cannot plead the NLC's exclusive mandate to defeat compensation. Had they been private parties they would have been liable in conversion or trespass.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the compensation ordered
Yes; the award was supported by the only valuation evidence before the trial court, which the appellants did not rebut.
A valuation report by Odongo Kabita & Company Valuers assessed the wall damage at Kshs 2,400,000 and the plot at Kshs 40,500,000. The appellants adduced no alternative valuation. The trial court was entitled to rely on the only evidence placed before it, and this Court could not fault the award.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging that land is public land must prove it was unalienated government land at the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution or that the allotment process was fraudulent or unprocedural; failure of proof leaves the registered title protected under Article 40(1).
- A public entity that forcefully takes possession of private land without involving the National Land Commission cannot later complain that a court assessing compensation usurped the Commission's mandate; it must compensate the owner fairly.
- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must reconsider and evaluate the evidence itself and draw its own conclusions.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal (duty to re-analyze and re-assess the evidence); Article 40 of the Constitution engaged on compensation for property
Relief refused
#Setting aside the ELC judgment and compensation award as sought by the appellants
The appeal lacked merit; the appellants failed to prove the suit property was unalienated public land and forcefully took possession without following the compulsory acquisition process
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
We therefore hold that the respondents established to the required standard of proof that they are the legal owners of the suit property.
The appellants, on its own free will and volition, chose to short-circuit the compulsory land acquisition process by a public entity.
They can have it after fairly compensating the respondents for the value of the suit property.
From the foregoing, it is evident that the appeal cannot be allowed. It lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the trial forum inconsistently as 'Land and Environment Court' and 'ELRC' though the analysis treats it as the ELC
The judgment does not state the appeal number or names of the parties in the coram; the panel is identified only by signature blocks
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega & another v Sila & another (Civil Appeal E033 of 2021) [2026] KECA 344 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from ELRC petition at Kakamega (petition dated 9th November, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/344/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.