County Government of Kakamega v Munzala (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5393 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Breach of lease development conditions
The defendant breached Special Condition No. 2 by failing to submit building plans within six months and failing to develop the suit property for over ten years from registration of the lease
The lease of 22nd February 2011 required submission of building plans within six months and development within 24 months. The property remained undeveloped for over ten years when the suit was filed. The court found breach of a fundamental term, entitling the lessor to exercise its right of forfeiture.
Compliance with the forfeiture procedure
The plaintiff complied with the statutory pre-forfeiture procedure through newspaper notice, WhatsApp service of the repossession notice, and hearing before the Appeals Panel
Section 75 of the Land Act requires not less than thirty days' notice specifying the breach. The plaintiff published notice on 16th February 2021 and served a repossession notice on 31st January 2022; the defendant was heard by the Appeals Panel and had over thirty days to remedy the breach but did not. The procedure under sections 73 to 77 was therefore satisfied.
Public land must be held productively and not for speculation
Public land allocated to private individuals must be developed; undeveloped allocation is against the constitutional principles of land policy and public interest
Article 60(1) requires land to be held, used and managed equitably, efficiently, productively and sustainably. Section 12(9) of the Land Act provides automatic reversion where allocated land is not developed. The court held that undeveloped allocations defeat the development purpose of the lease and the land reverts to Government.
Legal principles established
#- Where allocated public land is not developed in accordance with the terms of the lease, it automatically reverts to the national or county government
- The covenant to develop allocated public land is fundamental to the lease, and breach entitles the lessor to forfeiture if the statutory procedure is followed
- Even in an undefended suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its case
Court orders
#- 1.The lease in respect of land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/Block II/73 is forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the land
- 2.Claim allowed as prayed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Land Act and Article 162(2) Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (not expressly cited; suit founded on the Land Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Munzala (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (plaint dated 9th May 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5393/eng@2025-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.