Kisangi v Member of County Assembly Mlolongo Syokimau Ward & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 11 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 1008 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Machakos court ordered the county government to pay Kshs 4.75 million for unlawfully taking private land to build ward offices.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petitioner proved her rights to property protected under Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution have been violated by the respondents.
- 2.What orders should be made in relation to the petition, including an order as to costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioner proved ownership of the suit property and unlawful acquisition by the respondents
Yes - the petitioner discharged the burden of proof; the respondents unlawfully seized possession without following Part VIII of the Land Act or engaging the National Land Commission, violating Articles 40 and 47 and usurping the IP's functions under Articles 67 and 249.
The petitioner produced a certificate of lease, a map, a demand letter, the plot certificate in her late husband's name and a certificate of confirmation of grant. Photographs showed the respondents' building embossed with the MCA's office names. This evidence was unchallenged, the respondents having failed to respond. The court traced the compulsory acquisition procedure under Sections 107-121 of the Land Act and found no gazette notices, valuation, inquiry or engagement of the NLC.
What remedies flow from the established violations
Compensation of Kshs. 2,750,000/- for the land value (excluding developments), damages of Kshs. 2,000,000/- for the constitutional violations, and transfer of the suit property to the respondents upon compliance.
A court-ordered valuation fixed the land at Kshs. 2,750,000/- and the respondents' developments at Kshs. 3,800,000/-. Balancing justice and the public-serving developments already erected, the court chose compensation for the land value plus damages for the Article 40 and 47 violations, with the property to be transferred to the respondents after payment.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof remains with the petitioner even in the absence of rebuttal by the respondents.
- The State may only deprive a person of property through compulsory acquisition in conformity with Article 40(3) of the Constitution and the statutory procedure.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the respondents' action of entry, acquisition and development of plot no. 135(406) Mavoko Land Development Limited, now Athi River/Athi River Block18/101, contravenes Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution and Sections 107, 107A, 120 and 131 of the Land Act.
- 2.The respondents shall promptly pay the petitioner Kshs. 2,750,000/- being the value of the petitioner's plot, exclusive of developments.
- 3.Damages of Kshs. 2,000,000/- awarded to the petitioner, payable by the respondents.
- 4.Upon compliance with orders (b) and (c), the parties shall, within 6 months thereafter, transfer the suit property to the respondents or such entity as they nominate.
- 5.The petitioner is awarded costs, which the respondents shall bear.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 47, 67 and 249 of the Constitution of Kenya; Part VIII of the Land Act
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the respondents from entering, developing or dealing with the suit property
The court instead adopted compensation and transfer of the property upon payment, given the public-serving developments already constructed.
Costs
The petitioner is awarded costs, which the respondents shall bear.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A declaration is hereby made that the respondents' action of entry, acquisition and development of plot no. 135(406) Mavoko Land Development Limited, now Athi River/Athi River Block18/101, contravenes Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution and Sections 107, 107A, 120 and 131 of the Land Act.
The petitioner is awarded costs, which the respondents shall bear.
In the present case, the respondents illegally and improperly seized possession of the suit property without adhering to the relevant constitutional or statutory provisions. In other words, they arbitrarily appropriated the suit property.
The burden was upon those who alleged that there was no public participation to prove that allegation.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment opens by stating the matter was originally scheduled for judgment on 20/05/2025 and that the valuation report was filed on 23/10/2025, but the judgment is delivered and dated 24 February 2026; the month names in the internal dates ('20/05/2025', '23/10/2025') are inconsistent with the delivery date format and the passage 'DELIVERED AND DATED AT MACHAKOS THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026'.
The amended petition is described as undated yet the supporting affidavit is dated 3/06/2024 and the petition dated 21/05/2020 is referenced, creating internal date ambiguity.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisangi v Member of County Assembly Mlolongo Syokimau Ward & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 11 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 1008 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Undated amended constitutional petition filed 1/07/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1008/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.