The Kajiado Environment and Land Court has suspended the collection and enforcement of land rates and rent imposed under the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of a case challenging their legality.
The interim orders stop the county government from enforcing provisions requiring owners of rateable properties to pay land rates and holders of allotted properties to pay rent.
The case was filed by Sheria Mtaani, who has challenged Sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13) of the 2026 Finance Act, together with the corresponding provisions in the Tenth Schedule. Through lawyers Shadrack Wambui and Danstan Omari, the petitioner argues that the county government cannot lawfully impose land rates without first preparing, publishing, validating and operationalising a valuation roll as required under the National Rating Act, 2024.
According to the petition, the absence of a valuation roll has made it difficult for property owners to establish the basis upon which the amounts demanded by the county were calculated. The challenge also draws on an earlier dispute before the Kajiado Environment and Land Court.
Sharia Mtaani has cited Kajiado ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024, referred to in the proceedings as the L. Komingoi case, in which the court reportedly found that the basis used to determine rates under the 2023 Finance Act could not be established and consequently declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional. The petitioner further argues that the earlier case raised similar concerns over attempts to vary rent payable for allotted properties without a valuation roll.
Despite that decision, the petition claims, the county proceeded to enact the 2026 Finance Act without addressing the legal concerns previously identified by the court. The case also raises constitutional questions concerning the right to property under Article 40, the requirement that taxes be imposed only as authorised by law under Article 210, and the principles of transparency, accountability and equity in public finance under Article 201.
In addition, the petitioner has challenged the adequacy of public participation preceding the introduction of the disputed charges. The case alleges that residents were not given sufficient information about the methodology, data and valuation criteria used to determine the rates, limiting their ability to scrutinise and respond to the proposed charges.
The petitioner has also warned that continued enforcement could expose property owners who fail to pay to penalties and other enforcement measures. As a result, the court was asked to preserve the status quo and stop enforcement until the substantive petition is heard and determined.
The interim orders are limited to the challenged provisions of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026, while the court is yet to make a final determination on the constitutional and legal issues raised in the petition.
