https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4324

Kilindini Warehouse Ltd v County Government of Mombasa (Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4324 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa Environment and Land Petition E018 of 2025 A Ombwayo, J July 9, 2026 Between Kilindini Warehouse Ltd Petitioner and County Government Of Mombasa Respondent Judgment Petitioner’s Case 1.Kilindini Warehouse Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) is a limited liability company duly incorporated in Kenya, and is the registered and beneficial owner of Plot Number I/371, Kilindini, Mombasa, which is developed and used for industrial purposes whereas the County Government of Mombasa, (hereinafter referred the respondent) established under Article 176(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and is responsible for, inter alia, assessment and collection of land rates within its jurisdiction. 2.The petitioner has come to this court pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which grants every person the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed, or is threatened. 3.Moreover, under Article 23(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which vests in this Court the authority to uphold and enforce the Bill of Rights and Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which guarantees access to information. 4.The petitioner relies on Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which guarantees the right to property and protects the Petitioner from arbitrary deprivation of property. She further cites Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which guarantees every person the right to lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action, Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which secures the right to a fair hearing. Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which establishes the Environment and Land Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land and Article 201(a) & (b)(i), which establishes the principles of public finance, in particular the duty of openness, accountability, and public participation in financial matters, and by unfairly imposing an inequitable taxation burden upon the Petitioner through unlawful retrospective increments. 5.The petitioner places heavy reliance on Article 209(5), which sets the parameters under which the powers of a county government to impose taxes and stipulates such power shall not be exercised in a way that prejudices national economic policies, economic activities across county boundaries or the national mobility of goods, services, capital or labour. The principles of public finance are, in particular the duty of openness, accountability, and public participation in financial matters, and by unfairly imposing an inequitable taxation burden upon the Petitioner through unlawful retrospective increments. 6The petitioner cites Article 210 which prohibits the imposition of any tax or licensing fee other than as provided by legislation. The Respondent without legal basis unilaterally varied the petitioner's property rates upwards. 7.The petitioner urges that Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, expressly grants this Court jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to land, including disputes relating to land rates, rents, valuations, and other instruments giving rise to enforceable interests in land. Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, which set out the overriding objective of the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of civil disputes and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which preserves the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to meet the ends of justice. 8.Sections 4, 7 & 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, which require administrative bodies, such as the Respondent, to act lawfully, reasonably, and in accordance with fair procedure. 9.The Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266, Laws of Kenya),(Repealed) which provided the statutory framework for valuation rolls, establishment of valuation courts, publication of notices, and objection processes prior to enforcement of new rates. 10.Sections 4-6 of the Rating Act,Cap 267(repealed) which provides for the various forms of imposing rates. Section 4(1) of the Rating Act inter-alia provides that a rating authority may for the purposes of levying rates, adopt the following forms of rating:a.An area rate in accordance with Section 5:b.An Agricultural rental value rate: andc.Site value rate or site value rate in combination with an improvement rate in accordance with Section 6... 11.The Public Finance Management Act, 2012, which imposes transparency and accountability obligations on county governments in the administration of public revenue. 12.The Mombasa County Finance Act, 2023, which is provides for the Rates to be imposed and the timeline for payment being not later that 31st March of every year has been applied in disregard of the Constitution, the Valuation for Rating Act, and other enabling legislation. The Mombasa County Rating Act, 2014, which provides for the forms of rating and stipulates that the property rates shall be imposed by the Act providing for the County financing and yet the same was disregarded by the Respondent as the increment herein was arbitrary, illegal, unprocedural and in breach of this statute. 13.The petitioner states that she has at all times consistently paid annual land rates of Kshs. 743,400/=, being the assessed rate prior to the impugned variation. He laments that on or about 6th December 2023, the Respondent issued the Petitioner with a statement indicating an alleged outstanding balance of Kshs. 1,115,100/=. And that upon further inquiry, it was brought to the Petitioner's attention that as from 13th April 2023, the Respondent had unilaterally varied the annual land rates payable from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/=, being an increment calculated on the basis of 35% of property value as opposed to the previous 14%. The basis of this variation was not communicated to the Petitioner, nor was any lawful process followed to implement such a drastic increment. That contrary to the requirements of the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266):a.No draft valuation roll was prepared or published.b.No notices were issued inviting objections from ratepayers.c.No valuation court was set up to allow the Petitioner and other ratepayers an opportunity to contest the valuation or the rates. 14.The petitioner contends that the Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with Item 56, Sub-item 881 of the Mombasa County Finance Act, 2023, which prescribes industrial land to be charged at 14%, and unlawfully enforced a rate of 35% instead. That notwithstanding the foregoing, and in order to avoid disruption of its business operations, the Petitioner, in good faith, remitted a substantial sum of Kshs. 3,717,000/= on 14th May 2025, which payment was duly receipted by the Respondent. 15.The Petitioner, later on and specifically by its letters dated 4th June 2024 and 12th June 2024, formally sought clarification and requested the Respondent to provide the process of effecting the increment in land rates and the relevant notices and gazette notices coupled with the Information on public participation and views received in respect of the increased rates; The respondent did not provide documentation of approvals obtained from the Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and the Commission on Revenue Allocation pursuant to the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, Oon or about 4th June, 2025 the Respondent unlawfully refused to receive the letter dated 4th June, 2025, however, when the petitioner incessantly persisted, the Respondent agreed to receive the letter albeit with the current date, prompting the issuance of the letter dated and received on 12th June, 2025. 16.The Respondent ignored the said letters, failed to provide the requested information, and instead proceeded to enforce the unlawful increment. 17.Moreover, by a letter dated 18th August 2024, the Respondent demanded payment of Kshs. 2,030,689/= within seven (7) days, failing which legal proceedings would be commenced to recover the same. According to the petitioner, the Respondent's actions amount to arbitrary, illegal, unprocedural and unlawful enforcement of rates in breach of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Valuation for Rating Act, the and the principles of public finance under the Public Finance Management Act.a.The Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner of the proposed increment.b.The Respondent failed to provide the basis for the increment.c.The Respondent ignored the Petitioner's written requests for information and explanation.d.The Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with procedural fairness.e.Accordingly, the actions of the Respondent are ultra vires and unconstitutional. 18.Accoding to the petitioner, Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act echoed article 47 of the Constitution and reiterated the entitlement of every person to administrative action that was expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair and by ignoring the Petitioner's lawful requests for information and threatening to commence legal proceedings to enforce an unlawful demand, the Respondent has impeded the Petitioner's access to justice and fair recourse before the courts. That Article 50 guarantees every person the right to a fair hearing. By purporting to enforce new rates without establishing a valuation court and without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to object to the increment as required under the Valuation for Rating Act, the Respondent has denied the Petitioner its right to a fair process. 19.Article 201 mandates that public finance in Kenya shall be exercised in a manner that promotes openness, accountability, equity, and public participation. By failing to demonstrate compliance with the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, and by ignoring oversight mechanisms (including approvals from the CS National Treasury, Commission on Revenue Allocation, and CS Devolution), the Respondent has acted contrary to Article 201. Under the Valuation for Rating Act:a.A valuation roll must be prepared and published before new rates can take effect.b.A valuation court must be set up to hear objections from ratepayers.c.Notices must be gazetted and publicized.d.The Respondent has failed to comply with these mandatory requirements and has instead enforced arbitrary rates in contravention of statute. 20.The Respondent has acted contrary to the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act by:a.Failing to subject the increment to lawful scrutiny by the National Treasury and Commission on Revenue Allocation;b.Failing to demonstrate transparency and accountability in the imposition of the new rates;c.Failing to adhere to equitable principles of taxation. That under the National Rating Act:i.In enforcing payment of rates against defaulted rate payment, a written demand to be made upon such defaulter by the county government to pay within sixty days after service and consequences for failure to pay within the specified timelines. 2.1The Respondent, in threatening to institute legal proceedings to enforce an unlawful and unconstitutional demand, has abused its power and has acted in bad faith. This amounts to abuse of the process of the Court, contrary to Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act. 22.The petitioner prays for a declaration that the actions of the Respondent in unilaterally and retrospectively increasing the Petitioner's annual land rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= without due process are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio and that the Respondent's demand letter dated 18th August 2024 requiring the Petitioner to pay Kshs. 2,030,689/= within seven (7) days is irregular, unconstitutional, and incapable of enforcement in law. 23.The petitioner seeks a declaration that the Respondent, by its conduct, has violated the Petitioner's rights and legitimate expectations under Articles 10, 40, 47, 48, 50, and 201 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 24.The petitioner seeks an order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent, its servants, agents, or any person acting under its authority from demanding, levying, recovering, distressing for, or in any manner enforcing payment of the impugned enhanced land rates against the Petitioner unless and until full compliance with the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266), the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 25.The petitioner further seeks a judicial review order of certiorari to bring into this Honourable Court and quash the decision of the Respondent purporting to vary the Petitioner's annual rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= as unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally unfair. 26.Morever, an order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to strictly comply with the provisions of the National Rating Act, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 before imposing or enforcing any future variation of land rates. Lastly, an order directing the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner all monies paid pursuant to the unlawful increment, including the sum of Kshs. 2,230,200/= remitted on 14th May 2025, or in the alternative, credit the same towards the Petitioner's lawful rates payable in subsequent financial years. PlusCosts of this Petition be provided for by the Respondent. The Responce 27.The respondent vide a replying affidavit of Idris Mbaruk the Assistant Director Accounting Services states that that the aforesaid Petition is not only tenuous in law but also a mere red-herring and utterly devoid of merit. That the Petition is an afterthought comprised of unsubstantiated allegations intended to mislead this Honorable Court into sanitizing the indolence of the Petitioners in raising any objection they had to the review of rates payable and deny the County Government of Mombasa it's rightfully owed revenue. 28.The Respondent asserts that the Application is ill-conceived, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of this Honorable Court's process and specifically coined to mislead this Honorable Court into denying the County Government of Mombasa its rightfully owed revenue to run its operations and ensure proper service delivery to its citizenry, thus ought to be struck out and/or dismissed with costs to the Respondent for the reasons that the notice issued on the 6th day of December, 2023, was issued pursuant to the promulgation of the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022. 29.The respondent contends that she exercised her mandate under the promulgated Mombasa Finance Act and in furtherance of its duty to raise revenue, increased the rate payable from 14% to 35% and that the increment process was taken through the prerequisite legislative process that includes collection of public views through public participation barazas. The Respondent met the public and various stakeholders who shared their views on the proposed increment to rates payable. 30.The Petitioner herein failed to appear whether personally or through a representative to share their views on the said proposal to raise the revenue raising measure proposed in the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022. 3.1The respondent contends that the failure of the Petitioner herein to voice their objection to the said Mombasa Finance Act, 2022, the Petitioner is guilty of laches as Equity dictates that vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt and the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022 was passed as proposed. The respondent argues that the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022 underwent the proper legislative process which includes the collection and consideration of proposals and views from the general public and possible affected stakeholders. Rival Submissions 32.The gravamen of the petitioners submissions is that the subject property being categorized under industrial use falls under Item 56, Sub-item 922 of the Mombasa County Finance Act, 2022 and Item 56, Sub-item 881 of the Mombasa County Finance Act, 2023, which prescribes industrial land to be charged at 14% of its property value and not 35% of its property value. 33.The Petitioners' case is that the above cited actions by the Respondents are arbitrary, unlawful, and procedurally unfair as the Respondent failed to communicate the basis of the variation or to afford the petitioner an opportunity to object or be heard in line with the principles of the constitution, the repealed Rating Act (cap 267) and the repealed Valuation for Rating Act (cap 266) and natural justice. 3.4The petitioner has listed issue for determination as follows .i.Whether the Respondent complied with the constitutional and statutory frameworks in the imposition of increased rates;ii.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in their petition; andiii.What orders should issue in respect of the costs of the petition. 35.On whether the Respondent complied with the constitutional and statutory frameworks in the imposition of increased rates, the petitioner argues that the County Governments are empowered to impose property rates, entertainment taxes and any other taxes that they are authorized to impose by an Act of Parliament by dint of Article 209(3) of the Constitution. 36.However, Article 209(5) of the Constitution, sets the parameters under which the said powers are to be exercised. The said provision stipulates that such power shall not be exercised in a way that prejudices national economic policies, economic activities across county boundaries or the national mobility of goods, services, capital or labour. Further the Respondent in raising revenue ought to abide by the principles of public finance, in particular the duty of openness, accountability, and particularly public participation in financial matters is emphasized by the Public Finance management Act. 37.A further reading of Article 210(1) of the Constitution establishes that no tax or licensing fee may be imposed, waived or varied except as provided by legislation. 38.The Petitioners submit that the Respondent in this case increased the rates payable from 14% to35%, in contravention to the lawful process that is to be followed when varying the land rates. At the material time when the impugned actions were undertaken, being 13th April, 2023 as can be observed from the Petitioner's Statement of land rates dated 6th December 2023 (marked as MM-2), the applicable laws were the Valuation for Rating Act (Cap 266) and the Rating Act (cap 267), now repealed. 39.The Court in the case, Eastern Produce Kenya Limited, Siret Tea Company Limited, Kakuzi PLC (Kaboswa Estate), Kibwari PLC, Toyoi Investments Limited, Kipkeibon Estates Limited & another v County Government of Nandi [2021] KEELC 4173 (KLR) summed up the legal procedure for variations of rates in in line with the Valuation of Rating Act (Cap 266), and sections 4 to 6 of the Ratings Act (cap 267) both now repealed by stating that; an elaborate procedure for levying of rates as follows“The Valuation of Rating Act (Cap 266) specifically gives a county power to levy rates and sets out elaborate procedure for levying of rates as follows: Valuation Rolls to be prepared at least once every 5 years; values to be entered in the Roll; Power to amend valuation roll and to cause supplementary valuation roll to be prepared; Valuers to have power of entry and inspection and to obtain information; Contents of draft valuation roll; Basis of valuation; Deposit of draft Valuation and Supplementary Valuation Roll, which is open for public inspection, taking of copies or extracts, publication by notice to call for objections, sending to every rate payer within 21 days after the laying before a meeting of local authority (County Government); Objections to draft valuation and supplementary valuation rolls; Valuation Court to hear objections; and Appeals to Higher Courts." 40.The Petitioner submits that Section 7 of the Rating Act, particularly mandates county government units to prepare draft Valuation Roll or draft Supplementary Valuation Roll, under in accordance with Section 3 of the Valuation for Rating Act. The Respondent neither prepared the draft valuation roll nor the Supplementary Valuation Roll. 41.Further, Section 10 of the Valuation for Rating Act also provides for a process for objections to the values of rate able properties indicated in the Valuation Roll. In the circumstances herein, there was no valuation roll to raise objections to. 42.The Court of Appeal in the case County Government of Kwale v Kenya Airports Authority [2017] KECA 75 (KLR) was emphatic that the power to impose property rates by County Governments is enforced through the provisions of Rating Act and the Valuation for Rating Act. The Court Stated as follows;“The power to impose property rates by County Governments is enforced through the provisions of Rating Act and Valuation for Rating Act both of which according to Paragraph 7 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution are to be construed with necessary alterations, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions in order to bring them into conformity with the Constitution." 43.The Petitioner affirms and prays that the Honourable Court holds that the Respondent neither complied with the provisions discussed above, nor followed the procedures stipulated under the Rating Act and the Valuation for Rating Act for purposes of varying the Petitioner's Land rates and thereby imposing new land rates. In this case, the Respondents allege that the alleged increment was pursuant to the promulgation of the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022. Though the Petitioner made reference to the Mombasa Finance Act, 2023, both Finance Acts charge Industrial land rate of 14%. A perusal of the Statement of rates produced by the petitioner and marked as MM-2 establishes that the subject property's land usage is industrial and as result it attract an industrial rate of 14%. Consequently, the Petitioner submits that the said increment of its rates from 14% to 35% has no basis and backing of the Mombasa Finance Acts of 2022 and 2023. The alternative reason is that the Petitioner's property has been categorized to a different land usage without its knowledge. 4.Conclusively, the variation of Land Rate from 14% to 35% was arbitrary and without legal basis. The same ought to be unconstitutional, null and void for contravening Articles 10, 50(1), 190 (2), and 210(1) of the Constitution, the Rating Act (repealed) and the Valuation for Rating Act (repealed). 44.Whereas the Respondent submits and has indeed provided evidence of the notice and invite to public participation in respect of the Mombasa Finance Act, 2022, the valuation for Rating Act provided for a specific kind of public participation in respect of imposition or variation of rates. The Act required the preparation of a draft valuation roll and its publication, inviting objections from the public and property owners. Upon receipt of objections, a valuation court is to be established to determine the objections. The Respondents, failed to comply with the procedure as provided for and as outlined in the valuation of Rating Act, the Rating Act and the Constitution thereby denying the Petitioner an opportunity to present their grievances as they were entitled to under the law. 45.The petitioners argue that they are entitled to the reliefs sought in their petition. The question now for determination is whether the Petitioner is merited of the reliefs sought. This being a Constitution Petition, the Court must be satisfied that the same meets the threshold as set out in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR), where the court held;“if a person is seeking redress from the High Court on a matter which involves a reference to the Constitution, it is important (if only to ensure that justice is done to his case) that he/she should set out with a reasonable degree of precision;i.that of which he complainsii.the provisions said to be infringed, andiii.the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed. 46.The Petitioner herein has quoted various articles of the constitution that were allegedly violated being Articles 10,40, 47, 50, 201, 209 and 210(1) of the Constitution as having been violated. The said Articles were stated out in the pleadings and the manner of the infringement adequately explained. Firstly, the Petitioner urged the court to declare that the Respondent's action of increasing the petitioner's land rates from 14% to 35% without affording the Petitioner an explanation nor a basis to the said increment and further denying it a right to object unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio. 4.7The action of the Respondent caused the Petitioner to unjustly pay an excess of Kshs. 2,230,200 on 14th May, 2025, being payment of two years for the adjusted amount of Kshs. 1,115,100 to the Respondent. The amount stands to be unjustly lost as the Petitioner was condemned unheard and the same infringes its right to property under Article 40(1) of the constitution. 48.The Petitioner therefore prays that that the amount paid pursuant to the unlawful increment being Kshs. 2,230,000 be reimbursed to it or in the alternative it be credited to its lawful rates for the subsequent financial years. 49.The Petitioner having established that the Respondent failed to comply with Article 210 (1) and the Rating Act as well as the Valuation for Rating Act, prays that that court issues the orders and declarations sought. Finally, on the issue of costs. The law is that the court retains the jurisdiction to award costs subject to the general proviso that costs follow the event and is granted to the successful litigant. The Petitioner has succeeded in its petition and it is thus the successful litigant. Thus the Respondent ought to be condemned to pay costs. Analysis and Determination 50.I have considered the petition, reply and the submissions on record and do find that this matter revolves on Article 209 of the constitution of Kenya 2010 that provides for the power to impose taxes and charges. The import of Article 209 is that only the national government may impose income tax, value-addedtax, customs duties and other duties on import and export goods and and excise tax. 51.However an Act of Parliament may authorize the national government to impose any other tax or duty, except a tax specified in clause (3)(a) or (b). 52.Close(3)aand b give the county govrtnment the power to impose property rates and entertainment taxesand and any other tax that it is authorised to impose by an Act of Parliament. 53.Further that the national and county governments may impose charges for services. The taxation and other revenue-raising powers of a county shall not be exercised in a way that prejudices national economic policies, economic activities across county boundaries or the national mobility of goods, services, capital or labour. 54.Under Article 209(3)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, County Governments have the explicit power to impose property rates (commonly referred to as land rates). However, this power is not absolute. Counties must strictly adhere to the constitutional principles of public participation, statutory valuation processes, and the explicit distinction between land tenure types. Courts in Kenya consistently enforce specific principles regarding how counties must legally implement and collect land rates: It is trite that County governments cannot arbitrarily impose new rates or alter existing ones without a valid valuation roll and proper public participation. In the landmark ruling regarding Sheria Mtaani vs. Kajiado County, the High Court ruled that new county land rates are unconstitutional if passed without an active valuation roll and qualified valuation of the land. Counties are restricted from exercising their taxation powers in a punitive manner to paralyze a business. The court in Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited v County Government of Kajiado reinforced that counties must respect exemptions for designated national lands and cannot use coercive revenue- collection measures that contravene Article 209(5). 55.According to the petitioner, she has consistently paid Ksh 743,400 before the impugned variation and now has been issued with a statement indicating an alleged outstanding balance of Ksh 1,115,100. That as at 13th April 2023, the respondent had unilaterally varied the rates payable from 743,400 to 1,858,500 being an increment calculated at 35 % of property value as opposed to the previous 14%. The basis of the variation was not communicated to the petitioner. That no lawful process was followed in the variation of the rates. The respondent on his part states that he followed the prerequisite process. 56.I have considered the issue as to whether the petitioner was given adequate notice for the increment of the land rates and do find that juxtaposing these facts with the decisions of the Supreme court of Kenya on the issue of public participation, the notice was not reasonable as it gave the petitioner less that 14 days to participate. 57.In Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services Ltd & 5 others (2014), the Court gave one of its earliest authoritative interpretations of Article 10, holding that national values, including public participation, are peremptory, binding, and immediately enforceable. The Court adopted an expansive view of public participation as a living constitutional principle that demands qualitative depth and genuine engagement, not mere procedural box-ticking. 58.This interpretive approach was later fortified in British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health (2019), where the Court adopted a nine- pronged test for assessing the adequacy of public participation. Among the key elements were: clarity of the subject matter, accessibility of the participatory process, inclusiveness, reasonable notice and a demonstrable commitment to consider public views. The Court affirmed that Article 10 values are not merely aspirational or symbolic, but impose real, enforceable duties on State organs and public officers, insisting that public participation was to be “meaningful, purposive, and not illusory.” 59.The same line of reasoning was also applied in cases such as the Sonko v County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others [2022] and Member of Parliament Balambala Constituency v Abdi & 7 others [2023] where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the integral role of public participation in decision-making processes, ranging from legislative enactment to political accountability mechanisms. This doctrinal trajectory was consistent with the constitutional project of transformative constitutionalism—a shift from a culture of authority to a culture of justification, where all exercises of public power must be accountable and reasoned. In this matter, I do find that the respondent has not demonstrated that he complied with the principles of public participation. 6.0The second issue is whether the respondent complied with the rating Act or valuation for rating Act. The petitioner argues that the Respondents, failed to comply with the procedure as provided for and as outlined in the valuation of Rating Act Cap 266 Laws of Kenya, the Rating Act cap 267 laws of Kenya and the Constitution thereby denying the Petitioner an opportunity to present their grievances as they were entitled to under the law. 61.This court observes that the valuation for rating Act and the rating Act Cap 266 and 267 respectively were repealed by the National Rating Act (Act no 15 of 2024) on 24th DECEMBER 2024. However, by the time of repeal, the cause of action had accrued and due to the fact that law does not act in retrospect, the applicable law are the repealed statutes. The repealed statutes Section 3 provided for preparation of valuation rolls and supplementary valuation rolls. The County Government of Mombasa has not demonstrated that it had prepared the valuation rolls or any supplementary rolls before demanding for the increased rates from the petitioner. 6.2The upshot of the above is that the respondent did not comply with the requirements of the law of rating and therefore the petition is merited and I do grant orders as follows:-1.This court grants a declaration that the actions of the Respondent in unilaterally and retrospectively increasing the Petitioner's annual land rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= without due process are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio and that the Respondent's demand letter dated 18th August 2024 requiring the Petitioner to pay Kshs. 2,030,689/= within seven (7) days is irregular, unconstitutional, and incapable of enforcement in law.2.Moreover, a declaration is issued that the Respondent, by its conduct, has violated the Petitioner's rights and legitimate expectations under Articles 10, 40, 47, 48, 50, and 201 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.1.This court grants an order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent, its servants, agents, or any person acting under its authority from demanding, levying, recovering, distressing for, or in any manner enforcing payment of the impugned enhanced land rates against the Petitioner unless and until full compliance with the Valuation forRating Act (Cap 266), (repealed) the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.2.The court grants a judicial review order of certiorari to bring into this Honourable Court and quash the decision of the Respondent purporting to vary the Petitioner's annual rates from Kshs. 743,400/= to Kshs. 1,858,500/= as unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally unfair.3.Morever, an order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to strictly comply with the provisions of the National Rating Act, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 before imposing or enforcing any future variation of land rates.4.Lastly, an order directing the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner all monies paid pursuant to the unlawful increment, including the sum of Kshs. 2,230,200/= remitted on 14th May 2025, or in the alternative, credit the same towards the Petitioner's lawful rates payable in subsequent financial years. Costs of this Petition to the petitioner. SIGNED BY/FOR:★ THE JUDICIARY O F KENYA★HON. JUSTICE ANTONY O. OMBWAYO MOMBASA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURTEnvironment and Land Court Date: 2026-07-09 21:46:24The Judiciary of KenyaDoc IDENTITY: 4006763281967661552725316559Tracking Number:OORRPG2026