The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado has temporarily suspended the implementation and enforcement of provisions of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026, that require property owners to pay land rates and rent on allotted properties.

Lady Justice Judith Omange issued the interim conservatory orders after lobby group Sheria Mtaani filed a constitutional petition challenging the legality of the charges imposed by the Kajiado County Government.

The petition contested Sections 14(8), 14(9) and 14(13), read together with the Tenth Schedule of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026.

Through lawyers Shadrack Wambui and Danstan Omari, Sheria Mtaani argues that the county cannot lawfully levy land rates without first preparing, publishing, validating and operationalising a valuation roll as required under the National Rating Act, 2024.,

The petitioner contended that the absence of a valuation roll has exposed property owners to arbitrary and unexplained financial demands, contrary to the law.

In its court documents, the lobby group further argued that the disputed provisions mirror issues previously determined by the same court in Kajiado ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024, commonly referred to as the L. Komingoi case.

It claimed the court had found that the basis for rates imposed under the 2023 Finance Act could not be ascertained and consequently declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional.

Sheria Mtaani also maintained that the earlier decision held attempts to vary rent payable for allotted properties without a valuation roll to be unlawful.

Despite those findings, the petitioner says the county enacted the 2026 Finance Act without addressing the legal defects identified by the court.

The petition raised constitutional questions touching on the right to property under Article 40, lawful taxation under Article 210, and the principles of transparency, accountability and equity in public finance under Article 201.

It also alleged inadequate public participation in the enactment of the disputed charges, arguing that residents were not provided with sufficient information on how the rates were calculated.

The court heard that continued enforcement could expose landowners to penalties and other enforcement measures, causing widespread prejudice and potentially rendering the petition nugatory.

The orders concern the challenged provisions of the Kajiado County Finance Act, 2026 and remain subject to the further proceedings and determination of the substantive petition.