Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 4704 (KLR)

County Government of Kakamega v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4704 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 June 2025
DOD. O. Ohungo
1,155 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court took away a lessee's lease because they never developed the land as their lease required.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The County Government of Kakamega, established under Article 176 of the Constitution and the County Governments Act, sued as lessor of land parcel Kakamega/Municipality/Block I/615, seeking forfeiture of the lease on account of breach of special condition number 2 requiring development of the property. The lease, dated 5th June 2001 and registered on 3rd August 2001, was initially granted to James Muiru Waweru; the Defendant was registered as lessee on 3rd September 2001 for a term of 99 years from 1st April 1993. The special condition required submission of building plans within six months of registration and completion of buildings and drainage within 24 months, with a proviso permitting re-entry upon default. Despite service, the Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed submissions. The plaintiff's sole witness, Ronald Matende Omwoma, a land administration expert and member of the county's appeals panel, testified that the property was identified as undeveloped, the Defendant was notified of hearings but failed to appear, the committee recommended repossession, and a Notice for Repossession issued on 11th January 2022. Relying on Sections 12(9) and 31 of the Land Act and Article 60(1)(c) of the Constitution, the plaintiff urged that the threshold for forfeiture was met. The court found the Defendant in breach of special condition number 2 and entitled the plaintiff to the reliefs sought. The lease was forfeited, and as the plaintiff did not seek costs, the court made no order as to costs. Judgment delivered at Nyamira on 25th June 2025 by D. O. Ohungo, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant breached special condition number 2 of the lease requiring development of the suit property

Holding

The Defendant breached the condition by failing to develop the suit property as required.

Reasoning

The lease required the lessee to submit building plans within six months of registration and complete erection of buildings and drainage within 24 months. The Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed submissions, so the plaintiff's evidence stood unchallenged. The court perused the lease and certificate of official search, was persuaded by the uncontroverted evidence, and found the Defendant in breach of the special condition.

p. 3
02

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to forfeiture of the lease

Holding

Forfeiture on account of breach of special condition number 2 was granted.

Reasoning

Relying on Sections 12(9) and 31 of the Land Act and Article 60(1)(c) of the Constitution, the plaintiff contended that land must be held and used productively. The special condition itself provided for re-entry and cessation of the term upon default. Having found breach, the court held the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought and ordered forfeiture of the lease.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Sections 12(9) and 31 of the Land Act give a lessor the relief of forfeiture on account of breach of a special condition and empower the Court to grant forfeiture.
  • A defendant who does not challenge the plaintiff's uncontested evidence of breach of a lease development condition is liable to forfeiture of the lease.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The lease in favour of the Defendant in respect of land parcel title number Kakamega/Municipality/Block I/615 is forfeited on account of breach of special condition number 2 on development.
  2. 2.No order as to costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 176
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 60(1)(c)
  • County Governments ActNot specified
  • Land ActSections 12(9) and 31
  • Trust Land ActReferenced within special condition 2 of the lease

Cases cited (4)

  • Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi v Mtana Lewa
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi
    [2015] eKLR
  • Republic v County Government of Siaya Ex parte Between Ruth Akelo Were; Rosella Nyanja (Interested Party)
    [2021] eKLR
  • Melisa Awour Odera v Keringet Estates Limited
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Sections 12(9) and 31 of the Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4704 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4704/eng@2025-06-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.