Town Council of Awendo v Onyango & 13 others; Mohamed & 178 others (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#Original landowners lose all rights to compulsorily acquired land; government can reallocate unused portions.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court ruled that once the government takes your land through compulsory acquisition, you lose all ownership rights forever. You cannot claim it back later if the government doesn't use all of it. The government can give unused parts to private companies or individuals, but only for public benefit and at market price. In this case, land taken for expanding Awendo Township was still being used for that purpose, so it couldn't go back to the original owners.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a proprietor, whose land has been compulsorily acquired by the state, for a public purpose, in accordance with the Constitution and the Law, retains a reversionary interest in, or a pre-emptive right over any un-utilized portion of such land, should the public purpose for which it was acquired become spent?
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit land was acquired solely for the South Nyanza Sugar Scheme or also for the expansion of Awendo Township.
The court held that Gazette Notice No 2996 was for the establishment of the South Nyanza Sugar Scheme, while Gazette Notice No 3737 was for the expansion of Awendo Township, a distinct but related purpose.
The court examined the language of the two Gazette Notices. Gazette Notice No 2996 stated the purpose as 'the South Nyanza Sugar Scheme'. Gazette Notice No 3737 stated the purpose as 'the South Nyanza Sugar Scheme (Awendo Township Expansion)'. The court reasoned that the bracketed words 'Awendo Township Expansion' must be given meaning, indicating a separate purpose. The two notices referred to different parcels of land, further supporting the conclusion that they were for different purposes. The court found that the establishment of the sugar scheme necessitated the expansion of the township.
Whether the original owners of compulsorily acquired land retain a reversionary interest in unutilized portions of that land.
The court held that the original owners do not retain any reversionary interest in the compulsorily acquired land; their titles are extinguished upon acquisition and the land vests absolutely in the Government.
The court analyzed the legal concept of reversion, noting that it is an interest that survives the expiry of an estate. Upon compulsory acquisition, the owner's estate is extinguished and fused with the State's superior title. Section 19(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act (repealed) provided that upon taking possession, the land vests in the Government absolutely free from encumbrances. The court distinguished a reversionary interest from a pre-emptive right under section 110(2) of the Land Act, which arises only upon the failure or cessation of the public purpose, not where land is merely unutilized.
Whether the land comprised in Gazette Notice No 3737 was 'unutilized land'.
The court held that the land was not unutilized land because the expansion of Awendo Township, the purpose for which it was acquired, is an ongoing process.
The court found that the purpose of acquisition under Gazette Notice No 3737 was the expansion of Awendo Township. The allocation of plots to the Interested Parties for residential, commercial, and other amenities was in furtherance of this ongoing expansion. Therefore, the land was being utilized for its intended public purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Compulsorily acquired land can only be used for the original public purpose stated in the acquisition notice.
- Giving compulsorily acquired land to private individuals for private gain does not give them valid ownership.
- Original landowners lose all reversionary interest when their land is compulsorily acquired by the government.
- Unused portions of acquired land can be used for a different public purpose or sold at market price.
- Two related but distinct purposes (like a sugar scheme and township expansion) can justify separate acquisitions.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition of Appeal dated December 10, 2014 is hereby allowed.
- 2.The Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated October 18, 2013 is hereby overturned.
- 3.The 7th respondent herein shall be fully compensated by the Government of Kenya for the loss of his Land Title No North Sakwa/Kamasonga/1193.
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Civil Appeal No 161 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 163(4)(b) and 163(5) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Declaration that the 1st to 13th respondents have reversionary interest in the unutilized portions of the suit land
The court held that the respondents did not retain any reversionary interest in the compulsorily acquired land; their titles were extinguished upon acquisition.
Order for the re-survey and re-issuance of title deeds to the 1st to 13th respondents for the unutilized portions
The court found that the letter from the Land Registrar directing such re-survey had no legal basis, and the land was not unutilized as the expansion of Awendo Township was ongoing.
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.
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.
The Petition of Appeal dated December 10, 2014 is hereby allowed.
The Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated October 18, 2013 is hereby overturned.
Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.
A person whose land has been compulsorily acquired in accordance with the relevant constitutional and legal provisions does not retain any reversionary interest in the said land.
Un-utilized portions of compulsorily acquired land may be used for a different public purpose, or in furtherance of a different public interest, including the allocation of such portions to private individuals or entities, at the market price, in furtherance of such public interest.
The allocation of compulsorily acquired land, to private individuals or entities, for their private benefit, in total disregard of the public purpose or interest for which it was compulsorily acquired, shall be incapable of conferring title to that land in favour of the allottees.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Reversionary rights extinguished permanently
When advising clients on compulsory acquisition cases, make clear that once the acquisition is validly completed, the original owner's title is extinguished absolutely. There is no residual reversionary interest under the Land Acquisition Act (repealed) or current Land Act. Focus instead on ensuring full compensation is paid, and advise that pre-emptive rights under Section 110(2) of the Land Act only arise if the public purpose ceases entirely, not just from non-use.
Due diligence on acquired land titles
If your business acquires land from the government that was previously compulsorily acquired, verify that the allocation was for a public purpose or at market price. Challenge any allocation for private benefit that ignores the original public purpose. For developers near schemes like South Nyanza Sugar Company, check Gazette Notices to confirm the intended use matches your project, as improper allocations may be invalid.
No right to reclaim acquired land
If the government took your land legally for a public project like a sugar scheme or township expansion, you cannot demand it back even if parts remain unused. Your only remedy is fair compensation at the time of acquisition. However, if the government allocates unused portions to private individuals for personal gain, you can challenge that allocation as unlawful. Seek legal advice early to explore options.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I get my land back if the government doesn't use all of it after compulsory acquisition in Kenya?+
No, the Supreme Court ruled that once your land is compulsorily acquired, you lose all ownership rights permanently. Even if the government doesn't use some parts, those portions don't automatically return to you.
What happens to unused portions of compulsorily acquired land in Kenya?+
The government can use unused portions for a different public purpose or allocate them to private individuals or entities at market price, as long as it's in the public interest. The original owners have no claim to them.
Can the government give my acquired land to a private company in Kenya?+
Yes, but only if it's for a public purpose or done at market price. If the allocation is purely for private benefit without any public interest, it is invalid and can be challenged in court.
What is a reversionary interest in compulsory acquisition in Kenya?+
A reversionary interest is the idea that original landowners could reclaim unused land after acquisition. The Supreme Court made clear this right does not exist under Kenyan law. Once land is acquired, the government holds it absolutely.
Later judgments citing this (9)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Afrison Export Import Ltd & another v National Land Commission & 9 others (Civil Appeal 303 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1257 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1257 (KLR)3 Jul 2026followed
- Daniel v Meru County & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8304 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8304 (KLR)27 Nov 2025applied
- Kamau & another v Mjad Investments Limited & 3 others (Civil Appeal E106 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1824 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1824 (KLR)7 Nov 2025
- Aura v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology & 9 others; Wainaina & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E030 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7646 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7646 (KLR)6 Nov 2025
- Claassen v Commissioner of Lands & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition 7 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5287 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5287 (KLR)9 Jul 2025
- Kasarani Mall Limited & another v Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence & 4 others; The National Land Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case E010 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4075 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4075 (KLR)19 May 2025
- Kamau v Kinuthia & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 693 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3962 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 3962 (KLR)6 May 2025
- Export Processing Zone Authority v Mutungei & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 130 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 1271 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1271 (KLR)13 Mar 2025
- Arimi & 2 others v Kiambu Dandora Farmers Co. Ltd & 15 others; Mwangi (Interested Party) (Civil Suit E277 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 321 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 321 (KLR)21 Jan 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Town Council of Awendo v Onyango & 13 others; Mohamed & 178 others (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition 37 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2019/38/eng@2019-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.