Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Mombasa's court struck down a huge land rates increase because the county skipped valuation rolls and proper public participation, and ordered refunds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with constitutional and statutory frameworks in imposing increased land rates
The Respondent did not comply; the variation from 14% to 35% was unlawful, unconstitutional and void ab initio.
Under Article 209(3)(a) county governments may impose property rates, but the power is not absolute and must adhere to public participation and statutory valuation processes. The Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) and Rating Act (Cap 267) required preparation and publication of a draft valuation roll, notice inviting objections, and a valuation court. The Respondent prepared no valuation or supplementary roll and gave less than 14 days' notice, so the increment was unenforceable.
Adequacy of public participation and notice for the rates increment
The notice was not reasonable as it gave the petitioner less than 14 days to participate, and the Respondent did not demonstrate compliance with the principles of public participation.
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence including Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, British American Tobacco, Sonko and Balambala, public participation must be meaningful, purposive and not illusory, with reasonable notice and genuine engagement. Article 10 national values are binding and enforceable, not merely aspirational. The short notice and failure to engage the petitioner fell short of this standard.
Applicable statutory regime after repeal of the Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act
The repealed statutes apply because the cause of action accrued before their repeal by the National Rating Act (Act No. 15 of 2024) on 24th December 2024.
The court observed that the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) and Rating Act (Cap 267) were repealed with effect from 24th December 2024. Since the impugned variation took effect on 13th April 2023, before repeal, and the law does not act retrospectively, the procedural requirements of the repealed statutes - preparation of valuation rolls, objections and a valuation court - governed the impugned increment.
Satisfaction of the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold
The Petitioner satisfied the threshold by pleading the constitutional provisions infringed and the manner of infringement.
The petitioner pleaded specific Articles (10, 40, 47, 48, 50, 201, 209 and 210(1)) and explained the manner of infringement in the pleadings, satisfying the requirement in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic that a petitioner set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provisions infringed, and the manner of infringement, enabling the court to grant the declarations sought.
Legal principles established
#- County governments cannot arbitrarily impose new rates or alter existing ones without a valid valuation roll and proper public participation.
- Where the cause of action accrued before repeal of the Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act, the repealed statutes govern, as law does not act in retrospect.
- A county government demanding increased rates must demonstrate that it prepared valuation rolls or supplementary valuation rolls.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the actions of the Respondent in unilaterally and retrospectively increasing the Petitioner's annual land rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= without due process are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio, and that the Respondent's demand letter dated 18th August 2024 requiring payment of Kshs. 2,030,689/= within seven (7) days is irregular, unconstitutional, and incapable of enforcement in law
- 2.Declaration that the Respondent, by its conduct, violated the Petitioner's rights and legitimate expectations under Articles 10, 40, 47, 48, 50, and 201 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
- 3.Order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent, its servants, agents, or any person acting under its authority from demanding, levying, recovering, distressing for, or in any manner enforcing payment of the impugned enhanced land rates unless and until full compliance with the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) (repealed), the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, and the Constitution
- 4.Judicial review order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Respondent varying the Petitioner's annual rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= as unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally unfair
- 5.Order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to strictly comply with the National Rating Act, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Constitution before imposing or enforcing any future variation of land rates
- 6.Order directing the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner all monies paid pursuant to the unlawful increment, including Kshs. 2,230,200/= remitted on 14th May 2025, or in the alternative, credit the same towards the Petitioner's lawful rates payable in subsequent financial years
- 7.Costs of the petition to the petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23(1), 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4324/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.