Sheria Mtaani Na Shadrack Wambui & another v Kajiado County Assembly & another (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 47 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kajiado County's land rates and rent hikes were declared unconstitutional because the county skipped legally required valuation and public participation steps.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with constitutional and statutory framework in imposing revised rent and rates
The respondents failed to comply with the Rating Act and the Valuation for Rating Act; part 2 of the 8th schedule of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2023 was declared unconstitutional and void, and the variation of land rent was held arbitrary and without legal basis
The Finance Act, 2023 was enacted when the Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act were in force, and those statutes prescribed elaborate procedures including preparation of valuation rolls by qualified valuers, publication, objections and a valuation court. No valuation roll existed; the alleged GIS-based preliminary assessments had no legal basis and were undisclosed. Non-compliance offended article 210(1).
Public participation
The enactment of the provisions on payment and variation of rates was not preceded by the mandatory public participation required under the Valuation for Rating Act
Although evidence of general participation on the Finance Act as a whole was shown, the Valuation for Rating Act required a specific form of participation: publication of a draft valuation roll by a qualified valuer, invitation of objections and hearing by a valuation court. Failure denied property owners their statutory right to object.
Retrospective application of section 14(7) of the Finance Act
The notice of 28th February 2025 threatening repossession of plots with three years' arrears under section 14(7) was improper as an attempt at retrospective application
Applying the Supreme Court's presumption against retrospectivity, the court held that statutes are prima facie prospective. Whatever the intended meaning, the wording of the notice justified the petitioners' reading of a retrospective intention.
Reliefs
Declarations and certiorari issued; permanent injunction refused as unnecessary
The court found errors of law in the making of the rates decision, warranting certiorari. With the impugned provision quashed, it ceased to exist, rendering an injunction superfluous.
Legal principles established
#- County governments may raise rates only through the procedure laid down in national legislation, namely the Valuation for Rating Act and the Rating Act
- A no-taxation-without-legislation rule: taxes and fees may only be imposed as provided by legislation
- Statutes are presumptively prospective and retrospective effect requires express words or necessary implication
- Void acts are nullities and need no court order to set them aside
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that part 2 of the 8th schedule of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2023 requiring payment of land rates on urban trading centers, rural trading centers and adjudication section areas is unconstitutional, null and void as contravening articles 10, 40(1), 190(2) and 210(1) of the Constitution, the Rating Act (Repealed) and part IV of the Valuation for Rating Act (Repealed) as read with the National Rating Act, No. 15 of 2024
- 2.A declaration that the variation of land rent payable from the one prescribed in the letter of allotment is unconstitutional, null and void as contravening articles 10, 40(1), 190(2) and 210(1) of the Constitution, the Rating Act (Repealed) and part II of the Valuation for Rating Act (Repealed) read with the National Rating Act, Number 15 of 2024
- 3.A judicial review order of certiorari quashing the imposition of rates/decision communicated through the letter from the Director Revenue, Land Rent and Rates Unit stamped 1st January 2025, or any prior or subsequent correspondence listing and imposing the rent and rates payable by each township/trading centre in Kajiado County
- 4.Costs of the petition awarded to the petitioners against the respondents, jointly and severally
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 40(1), 190(2) and 210(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition challenging county revenue-raising measures)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sheria Mtaani Na Shadrack Wambui & another v Kajiado County Assembly & another (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 47 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 10th March 2025 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/47/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.