Matoya & another v Attorney General & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 24 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 8049 (KLR)

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Sehmi v Tarabana, the court held that upon expiry by effluxion of time the lease is extinguished for all purposes, no equitable interest survives, and whatever remains is at worst a tenancy at will or at best a mere equity. In this case the certificate of lease was for 33 years from 1 May 1967, so the term ended on 1 May 2000, leaving the land as public land renewable by the Commission.

The court reviewed Sections 13 of the Land Act, 2012 and Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Land (Extension and Renewal of Leases) Rules, 2017. It noted the scheme requires an application to the Commission which forwards it to the CEC, Lands for consideration and approval after representations from relevant authorities. Since that step had not occurred and the 4th defendant opposed adoption, the court could not bypass the County Government's role by adopting the report.

Because the matter had already been before the Commission with the parties' consent, the judge considered it unnecessary to remit parties to the Commission. Instead, to save time, he waived the Rule 6(1) forwarding step and directed parties to lodge Form LR 23 directly with the CEC, Lands, who is to hear the interested parties (plaintiffs, 4th defendant and the legal representative of Zakaria Matoya) as well as seek recommendations from the relevant authorities before deciding.

Observing that under the statutory scheme the court comes only at the tail end on appeal from the Independent Appeals Committee, the judge doubted the court's jurisdiction over the renewal question in the first instance. He nonetheless gave interim directions and stated that after delivery of the ruling he would give directions on the jurisdictional question.