County Government of Kakamega v Mitha & Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E032 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4481 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court forfeited a 25-year-old undeveloped lease, confirming that public land allocated but never developed reverts to government.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant breached the terms of the lease
The defendant breached Special Condition No. 2 of the lease by failing to submit building plans within six months and to develop the property within 24 months of registration of the lease; for 25 years the property remained vacant
The court found it not disputed that the lease was registered in 1996 requiring development plans within six months and development within 24 months. It was further not disputed that no development plans were ever submitted and the suit property remains vacant. DW1 conceded the defendant lacked financial capability and never submitted plans for approval. The court held this amounted to breach of a fundamental term of the lease, since allocation of public land is for sustainable development and not speculation.
Whether the plaintiff deserves an order of forfeiture of the lease
The plaintiff complied with the forfeiture procedure (Gazette and newspaper notices, service of repossession notice, opportunity to be heard before the Appeals Panel) and is entitled to forfeiture of the lease
Under sections 31, 73 and 75 of the Land Act, forfeiture requires notice of not less than 30 days specifying the breach and requiring remedy. The court found the defendant was informed through Gazette Notice and newspaper advertisements, was served the repossession notice by WhatsApp, and was given the opportunity to be heard before the Appeals Panel. The suit was filed more than 30 days after the notices, and the defendant, having no financial capacity, could not remedy the breach. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to the orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- Public land is allocated for sustainable development, not speculation, and the condition to develop is fundamental to the lease so that breach results in cancellation of the lease
- Where public land allocated to a private individual is not developed as required by the lease, the land automatically reverts to the national or county government
- Where a lessee breaches the terms of the lease and the lessor follows the correct forfeiture procedure, the lessor is entitled to an order cancelling the lease
Court orders
#- 1.Claim allowed - the lease in respect to land parcel title No. Kakamega Municipality/Block I/618 is forfeited on account of the defendant's lack of development of the land
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 31, 73, 75 and 12(9) of the Land Act, 2012 - action for forfeiture of lease over public land allocated by lease
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega v Mitha & Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E032 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4481/eng@2026-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.