County Government of Taita Taveta v Development & 4 others; Council of Governors (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7275 (KLR)

Article 186(1) assigns functions per the Fourth Schedule; agriculture and allied livestock functions are reserved to counties, with the National Government holding only a policy role. Cooperation under Article 189 and public participation under Article 10 and Section 87 of the County Governments Act were mandatory. Proceeding without consulting the County or the public breached these provisions, as supported by Supreme Court authority on subsidiarity and mutual respect between levels of government.

Although the BLQS predates the 2010 Constitution, Article 63(2) vests public land in the County Government in trust for residents, and Articles 186 and the Fourth Schedule allocate agriculture-related functions to counties. The Respondents could not rely on historical reservation and occupation; they were bound to respect devolution and comply with the Constitution when exercising their functions.

Since breaches were demonstrated, the court invoked Article 23(3) to grant appropriate remedies. However, the mandamus sought unconditional transfer of the farm without evidence that the National Land Commission, which has constitutional responsibility over public land, had been engaged; relying on the NLC advisory opinion and related authority, that relief could not be granted in the manner sought.