The Kajiado County Government has been barred from collecting land rates on freehold properties following a ruling by the Kajiado High Court. The court issued a conservatory order after Sheria Mtaani, a non-governmental organization, successfully made a case arguing that the move to impose land rates on freehold properties was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The case, which is set to continue in February 2025, has brought to light ongoing concerns regarding land ownership, taxation, and the protection of land rights for small-scale landowners.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Komingoi Loice, came as a major blow to the county government, which had introduced the rates as part of its revenue collection efforts. The case raised crucial questions about the fairness of imposing land rates on landowners who hold freehold titles, which traditionally confer ownership rights without time limitations.
The Legal Challenge and Grounds for the Ruling
Sheria Mtaani, a legal advocacy organization, challenged the imposition of land rates on freehold properties on the grounds that it was unfair to small-scale landowners. The organization argued that the move would disproportionately affect people who had acquired their land through legal means, including those who had inherited or purchased property over time.
In her judgment, Justice Komingoi Loice highlighted that the introduction of land rates on freehold land was effectively altering the status of such land, converting it from freehold to leasehold status. Freehold land typically provides the owner with permanent and unconditional rights over the property, a stark contrast to leasehold land, where ownership is typically subject to conditions such as payment of annual rent. By imposing taxes on freehold properties, the court found that the county government was not only violating the rights of landowners but also creating a system that unfairly penalized them.
The ruling emphasized that the tax burden on freehold landowners was discriminatory, especially for those who may already be struggling with the costs of land maintenance and development. Many landowners in Kajiado are from rural and low-income backgrounds, and for these individuals, the new tax regime would have placed a significant strain on their ability to maintain or develop their land. This concern was raised in court, as the plaintiffs pointed out that the land rates could lead to dispossession or force landowners to sell their properties to meet the rising costs of taxes.
The Implications of the Ruling
The ruling has important implications for landowners across Kajiado County and could set a precedent for how land rates are applied in the future. Freehold properties in Kenya have long been regarded as a key part of land tenure, and any changes to their taxation or classification could have far-reaching consequences.
The court’s decision effectively halts the implementation of the new tax system until the matter is fully resolved. This means that the county government cannot proceed with its plans to collect rates from freehold properties until after the next hearing, scheduled for February 26, 2025.
For Kajiado’s residents, particularly those who have land under freehold titles, the court’s ruling brings a sense of relief. The uncertainty surrounding the new tax regime has now been temporarily lifted, and landowners can focus on safeguarding their property rights without the looming threat of additional financial burdens.
Looking Ahead
The case is set to be heard again in February 2025, and its outcome will likely have a lasting impact on land rate policies across Kenya. The central issue in the case revolves around balancing the government’s need for revenue with the protection of landowners’ rights. As more counties explore ways to collect land rates, the Kajiado case will undoubtedly influence how land taxes are applied, particularly in regions with a significant number of freehold properties.
The ruling also underscores the importance of land rights advocacy and legal action in safeguarding the interests of ordinary citizens. With more attention being drawn to land-related issues, it is clear that the protection of land rights in Kenya remains a contentious and evolving area of law. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to monitor its broader implications for landowners and the future of land taxation in Kenya.
