You are here: Home » News » Sep 25, 2026 » Kajiado court halts enforcement of 2026 land rates and rent charges

Policy
#land rates#valuation rollKenya

Kajiado court halts enforcement of 2026 land rates and rent charges

Written on

The Kajiado Environment and Land Court has issued interim orders blocking the county government from enforcing land rates and rent charges introduced under the County Finance Act 2026, pending a petition by lobby group Sheria Mtaani.

The Kajiado Environment and Land Court has issued interim orders blocking the Kajiado County Government from enforcing land rates and rent charges introduced under the County Finance Act 2026, following a petition challenging the legality of those charges.

The orders, issued by Judge Judith Omange, target Sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13) read together with the Tenth Schedule of the Finance Act, and will remain in force pending the hearing and determination of the substantive petition.

The petition was filed by lobby group Sheria Mtaani, represented by lawyers Shadrack Wambui and Danstan Omari. The group argues that the county cannot lawfully impose land rates without first preparing, publishing, validating and operationalising a valuation roll as required under the National Rating Act 2024, leaving property owners exposed to arbitrary financial demands with no transparent methodology.

Sheria Mtaani pointed to a previous ruling in Kajiado ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024, in which the same court reportedly found that the basis for rates under the 2023 Finance Act could not be ascertained and declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional. The petitioner contends the county enacted the 2026 Finance Act without rectifying those legal defects.

The petition raises constitutional concerns including protections for property rights under Article 40, requirements for lawful taxation under Article 210 and principles of transparency, accountability and equity in public finance under Article 201, and alleges the process lacked adequate public participation under Article 10.

The court was told that if enforcement continued, property owners could face penalties for non-payment, causing widespread harm to residents and potentially undermining the purpose of the substantive petition. The petitioner sought orders preserving the existing position until the court rules on the merits.

Related Articles

View All

Conversation

All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. Please keep the conversation respectful and constructive.

Loading comments...