Eastern Produce Kenya Limited, Siret Tea Company Limited, Kakuzi PLC (Kaboswa Estate), Kibwari PLC, Toyoi Investments Limited, Kipkeibon Estates Limited & another v County Government of Nandi [2021] KEELC 4173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck down Nandi County's increased land rates and machine-plucked tea charges for being imposed without following the law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the constitutional threshold
The petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold; the court had jurisdiction and constitutional avoidance did not apply.
The court held the Petitioners clearly framed the constitutional issues, established a nexus between the impugned statutory provisions, the specific constitutional provisions infringed, and the manner of infringement. Constitutional avoidance was inapplicable because what was before the court was whether the legislation met constitutional thresholds, not the wisdom of taxing. The court relied on Anarita Karimi Njeru, Mumo Matemu and related authority.
Whether the variation/imposition of land rates violated Articles 27, 201(b)(i) and 210(1)
The variation of land rates without following the Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act procedures violated Article 210(1), and the differentiation based on acreage was discriminatory, rendering the impugned provisions null and void.
The court accepted the Respondent may levy property rates under Article 209(3) and may use the national rating statutes pending county legislation, but Article 210(1) requires imposition or variation 'as provided by legislation'. No supplementary valuation roll or statutory procedures were followed. The distinction between owners above and below 250 acres was unjustified, punitive towards large owners, and offended equal sharing of the tax burden under Article 201(b)(i).
Whether charges on machine-plucked tea under Item 7 of the Ninth Schedule were valid
The charges were null and void as imposed without legislative basis, and unfair and discriminatory under Article 27.
The Rating Act does not contemplate charges on machine-plucked tea as a rating method under sections 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9; hence the levy violated Article 210(1). No rationale was given for distinguishing machine-plucked from hand-plucked tea or other mechanised agricultural activities, and it is mainly large-scale producers who mechanise, so the charge was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Legal principles established
#- No county may impose, waive or vary a tax except as provided by legislation; where a county relies on national rating legislation it must strictly follow the procedures in the Rating Act and the Valuation for Rating Act.
- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold).
- Differentiation in taxation between similarly situated classes without objective or reasonable justification amounts to unfair discrimination under Article 27.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Ninth Schedule of the Nandi County Finance Act 2019 and section 6 of the Nandi County Finance (Amendment) Act 2019 were enacted in breach of the specified Articles of the Constitution and are null and void.
- 2.Permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from demanding and collecting any land rates from the Petitioners pursuant to Item 1 of the Ninth Schedule to Nandi County Finance Act 2019 and Item 1B of Section 6 of the Nandi County Finance (Amendment) Act 2019 without due regard to the provisions of the Rating Act (CAP 267) and the Valuation for Rating Act (CAP 266).
- 3.Finding that the imposition of charges on machine-plucked tea is null and void to the extent the Respondent purports to levy the same pursuant to the Rating Act (Cap 267), being unfair and discriminatory in violation of Articles 210(1) and 27(1)(2) and (4).
- 4.Costs of the Petition to the Petitioners.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (enforcement of Bill of Rights)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)9 Jul 2026
- Sheria Mtaani Na Shadrack Wambui & 6 others v Kajiado County Assembly & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 2 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6954 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6954 (KLR)9 Oct 2025
- Kakuzi PLC v County Government of Muranga (Petition 3 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 248 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 248 (KLR)30 Jan 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eastern Produce Kenya Limited, Siret Tea Company Limited, Kakuzi PLC (Kaboswa Estate), Kibwari PLC, Toyoi Investments Limited, Kipkeibon Estates Limited & another v County Government of Nandi [2021] KEELC 4173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4173/eng@2021-02-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.