Sheria Mtaani Na Shadrack Wambui & 4 others v Kajiado County Assembly & another

AND KAJIADO COUNTY ASSEMBLY………..........................1ST RESPONDENT COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KAJIADO……………..2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before the Court is the Petitioners’ Notice of Motion dated 24th April 2026 which seeks conservatory orders temporarily suspending the implementation and enforcement of Sections 14(8), (9) and (13), as read together with the Tenth Schedule of the Kajiado County Finance Act 2026, in so far as those provisions require the payment of land rates on rateable properties and rent on allotted properties. 2. The application is premised on the grounds that the impugned provisions impose or vary land rates and rent without a valid valuation roll, valuation methodology or other lawful valuation basis, notwithstanding earlier decisions of this Court in Kajiado ELC Petition Nos. E002 of 2024 and ELC RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 2 of 15

page 2 of 15

Petition E003 of 2025 concerning substantially similar measures by the Respondents. The Petitioners further claim that the enactment and implementation of the impugned provisions of the Kajiado County Finance Act 2026 were not preceded by the constitutionally and statutorily required public participation. They also challenge the imposition of a penalty of 25% per annum on unpaid rates under Section 14(13) of the Kajiado County Finance Act as being inconsistent with Section 16(3) of the National Rating Act 2024 which limits interest on unpaid rates to a rate not exceeding the prevailing Central Bank of Kenya rate. As such, if the implementation of the impugned provisions is not stopped, it poses an imminent risk of irreparable harm and continuing constitutional violations. It is argued that it is in the public interest, to preserve the status quo and suspend implementation of the impugned provisions. 3. The 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit in which the Clerk of the County Assembly averred that the 1st Respondent had complied with all the requisite legislative stages. This included advertising and inviting the public to participate in the RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 3 of 15

page 3 of 15

process. That the alleged defect relating to valuation cannot invalidate the entire legislation. 4. Counsel for the Petitioners submit that they have presented a prima facie case and if the orders sought are not granted, the Petition will be rendered nugatory, citing Munya v Kithinji & 2 others [2014] KESC 30 (KLR) and Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) & another v Republic of Kenya & another [2015] KEHC 6984 (KLR). It is submitted that the Respondents have not prepared, published, exhibited, validated or operationalized any valuation roll making the Tenth Schedule to the Kajiado County Finance Act 2026 illegal since it has no legal basis. Counsel also submits that in previous Petitions Kajiado ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024 and ELC Petition No. E003 of 2025 the Court held that in the absence of a valuation roll, the purported variation was unlawful. The Petitioners contend that notwithstanding the previous determinations of this court, the Respondents enacted the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026 and, through sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13) as read with the Tenth Schedule, RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 4 of 15 have once again provided for the

page 4 of 15

imposition and collection of land rates without first preparing and bringing into operation a lawful valuation roll. 5. They contend that a valuation roll is not a mere administrative formality but is the legal mechanism through which rateable property is identified and valued and upon which a lawful rate may thereafter be imposed. 6. The Petitioners therefore argue that the impugned provisions, to the extent that they are being implemented without a lawful valuation roll, threaten the constitutional rights of property owners and offend the principles of legality, the rule of law, fair administrative action and protection of property. They further maintain that unless the Court intervenes, ratepayers within Kajiado County will be exposed to demands for rates, penalties and enforcement measures calculated upon a valuation regime whose legality is itself in dispute. 7. The 1st Respondent opposes the application. Their principal response is that the Kajiado County Finance Bill, 2026 was subjected to the requisite legislative process and was duly passed before becoming law. The 1st Respondent further contend that the preparation and publication of a valuation RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 5 of 15

page 5 of 15

roll is not within the mandate of the County Assembly which legislates laws. 8. They consequently urge the Court to respect the legislative mandate of the County Assembly and the constitutional functions of the County Government and to decline the invitation to suspend provisions of a duly enacted County legislation at an interlocutory stage. The 1st Respondent submit that the Petitioners have not established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. They argue that the reliance on the absence of a valuation roll is misconceived at this stage as valuation, assessment, billing and enforcement of rates is an executive and administrative function relating to implementation. 9. It is further the contention of the 1 st Respondent that the Petitioners will not suffer any prejudice. He states that the Petitioners have not demonstrated any present or immediate threat. Lastly, it is the case of the 1st Respondent that it is not in the public interest to grant the conservatory orders sought by the Petitioner as it would affect County operations yet there is a presumption of constitutionality. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 6 of 15

page 6 of 15

10.Having considered the Application, the sole issue for determination is whether the Petitioners have satisfied the conditions for the grant of a conservatory order. In considering this issue, the court will consider the following; Whether the Petitioners have established a prima facie case warranting conservatory protection; Whether failure to grant conservatory relief would prejudice the Petitioners or render the Petition or its substratum nugatory; Where the public interest and the principle of proportionality lie; and What orders if any ought to issue. 11.Before I delve into these issues, I will address a jurisdictional issue raised by the 1st Respondent who averred that the issues herein ought to be heard by the National Rating Tribunal. I have considered the arguments and do appreciate that the Tribunal has wide jurisdiction to hear Rates disputes. However, this jurisdiction does not extend to determination of the Constitutionality of implementation of a statute which properly falls within the jurisdiction of this court. I will now turn to the consideration of the substantive issues. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 7 of 15

page 7 of 15

12.In considering whether there is established a prima facie case, the court notes that the 1 st Respondent has placed considerable emphasis on the fact that the Kajiado County Finance Bill, 2026 underwent all the requisite legislative stages before enactment. This argument, while relevant to the procedural validity of the enactment, does not in my view sufficiently answer the complaint presented by the Petitioners. 13.The Petitioners' main grievance is not merely that the Act was improperly enacted. Their case is that the Respondents are seeking to implement sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13), read together with the Tenth Schedule, by imposing land rates notwithstanding the alleged absence of a duly prepared, published and operative valuation roll. 14.This is not the first time the legality of the Kajiado County rating regime has come before this Court. In Sheria Mtaani Na Shadrack Wambui & another v Kajiado County Assembly & another, Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025 [2026] KEELC 47 (KLR), Judgment was delivered on 19th January 2026. The Court found, inter alia, that the RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 8 of 15

page 8 of 15

County Government had not prepared the requisite valuation roll forming the basis upon which the value of rateable properties and the rates payable were to be determined. 15.The Court ultimately declared Part 2 of the Eighth Schedule to the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2023 requiring payment of land rates on urban trading centres, rural trading centres and adjudication section areas unconstitutional, null and void for contravening, among others, Articles 10, 40(1), 190(2) and 210(1) of the Constitution and the applicable rating legislation read together with the National Rating Act, No. 15 of 2024. 16.This Court, at this interlocutory stage, is not required to determine whether sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13) of the 2026 Act are unconstitutional. This is one of the substantive questions reserved for the hearing of the Petition. Of relevance at this stage, is that the Petitioners have demonstrated that there exists a previous judgment of a competent Court dealing with the same underlying concern, namely the legality of the imposition of land rates in Kajiado County in the absence of the requisite valuation roll. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 9 of 15

page 9 of 15

17.It is also clear that the 1 st Respondent is not denying the absence of the valuation roll, but is instead saying the responsibility to prepare the valuation roll lies elsewhere. Against this background, the allegation that the Respondents have enacted and are seeking to implement a new rating regime without first curing the deficiency identified in the earlier Judgment raises a serious question requiring determination at the substantive hearing. 18. The next question is whether the Petitioners have demonstrated withheld. If prejudice the should impugned conservatory provisions are relief be implemented pending determination of the Petition, property owners may become liable to demands for land rates and, potentially, penalties and enforcement measures arising from those demands. Should the Petition ultimately succeed, the Court would then be confronted with a rating regime that has already been implemented against numerous property owners notwithstanding the challenge to its legal foundation. 19.Preservation of the position pending determination of the Petition does not finally invalidate the impugned provisions. It RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 10 of 15

page 10 of 15

suspends enforcement to the limited extent necessary to enable the Court to determine whether the statutory conditions for their lawful implementation have been met. The Court is therefore satisfied that there is a real danger of prejudice and that implementation of the challenged rating regime could substantially alter the substratum of the Petition before the constitutional questions raised have been determined. 20.On the question of public interest, the court is alive to the need for the Respondents to raise revenue necessary for the discharge of county functions. Revenue collection is an important public interest. That consideration, must be considered alongside the equally compelling public interest in ensuring that taxes, rates and other fiscal burdens are imposed and collected strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Article 210(1) of the Constitution provides that no tax or licensing fee may be imposed, waived or varied except as provided by legislation. 21.In addition, there is a profound public interest in maintaining respect for and RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 11 of 15 compliance with decisions of courts.

page 11 of 15

Compliance with court decisions is central to the Rule of Law. Public confidence in the Judiciary is sustained when citizens know that the law applies equally to all and that court decisions will be respected. 22. Article 10 of the Constitution binds all State organs and public officers to apply the national values and principles whenever they apply or interpret the Constitution, enact or apply law or make or implement public policy decisions. 23.The previous Judgment of this Court is therefore a relevant public interest consideration. Whether the 2026 legislation has sufficiently addressed the defects identified in that Judgment is a question for final determination. Until then, the authority of the Court and the rule of law favour preservation of the disputed subject matter. 24.The Supreme Court in Munya v Kithinji & 2 others [2014] KESC 30 (KLR) emphasized that conservatory orders are concerned not merely with private prejudice but with constitutional values, public interest and preservation of the Court's adjudicatory authority. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 12 of 15

page 12 of 15

25.Ultimately, I find that there is need to preserve the subject matter by restraining implementation of the impugned land rates and rents pending the determination of the Petition. The application is allowed as follows; a. That pending determination the of hearing the Petition, and a Conservatory order is issued restraining the Respondents from implementing or enforcing sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13), as read together with the Tenth Schedule of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026, to the extent that those provisions provide for the imposition, demand, levy or collection of the impugned land rates and rents in the absence of a duly prepared, published and operative valuation roll as required by law. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 13 of 15

page 13 of 15

b. In view of the public importance of the matter and its implications for the the County's revenue administration, Petition shall heard be expeditiously within a period of four months failing which the conservatory order shall lapse unless the delay is occasioned by the Respondents in which event the court shall be at liberty to extend the orders. c. The costs shall abide the outcome of the Petition. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Kajiado this 24 th day of September 2026. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Mr. Wambui with Mr. Kangethe for Petitioner. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 14 of 15

page 14 of 15

Peter – Court Assistant. RULING PET. NO. E004 OF 2026 Page 15 of 15

page 15 of 15