Why government withdrew Land Bill 2023

National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung'wah. [Kipsang Joseph, Standard]

The government has withdrawn Land Laws Amendment Bill Number two of 2023 which would have increased friction between the authorities and Kenyans.  

National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichungwah through a letter to the National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetangula sought withdrawal of the bill.

Ichungwah said after consulting various stakeholders the majority party in parliament he had decided to withdraw the bill and sought to have the National Assembly Business Committee notified of the withdrawal and that no further consideration will be undertaken.

Ichungwa said in the letter that he had notified the House Business Committee not to prioritise consideration of the bill to allow for consultation with the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning and the National Lands Commission.

“It is worth noting that there are various ensuing constitutional and legal issues arising from the bill, in this regard, the executive had further advised on the need for the ensuing issues to be addressed and resolved before further consideration of the bill,” said Ichungwah.

Nyamira Senator Okongo Omogeni said it was unthinkable for anyone to think of taxing freehold land and that such proposals should only apply on leasehold land. Okong'o said the Ichungwah bill would most likely have faced backlash from Kenyans who are already up in arms over the Finance Bill 2024 proposals.

“Compulsory acquisition of land should only be done for the public good with clear procedures followed with adequate compensation done to the owners to ensure they do not suffer loss,” said Omogeni.

In the amendment that were to be introduced by the Ichungwah bill, The Land Act, 2012 was to be amended by inserting new sections of 54 A of Number 6 of 2012.

The proposals stated that the owner of any freehold land or property situated within the boundaries of any urban area or city shall pay an annual land levy equivalent to land rent charged on comparable leasehold land or property of the same size in the same zone.

The bill also sought to repeal and replace section 107 of Number 6 of land act 2012 and replace it with the following new section where it states that whenever the national or county government is satisfied that it may be necessary to acquire some particular land.

“Under section 110, the respective Cabinet Secretary or the County Executive Committee Member shall submit a request for acquisition of land to the Cabinet Secretary to acquire the land compulsorily,” stated the section.

The bill stated that the Cabinet Secretary shall prescribe criteria and guidelines to be adhered to by the acquiring public bodies in the acquisition of land.

 The Cabinet Secretary may reject the request of an acquiring public body, to undertake an acquisition if the request does not meet the requirements prescribed under subsection (2) and Article 40(3) of the Constitution.

“Where the Cabinet Secretary rejects the request of an acquiring public body in accordance with subsection (3), the Cabinet Secretary shall within fourteen days of the decision inform the acquiring public body of the decision to reject the request and state the reason for the rejection,” states the bill.

The bill states that if the Cabinet Secretary establishes that the request under subsection (1) meets the requirements prescribed under subsection (2) and Article 40(3) of the Constitution, the Cabinet Secretary shall cause the affected land to be mapped out and valued using the valuation criteria set out under the act.

The Cabinet Secretary is required to establish whether the acquiring public body has identified the number and maintained a register of persons in actual occupation of the land, confirming for each such occupation the duration of uninterrupted occupation or ownership of interest in the land prior to the date of the request for acquisition of the land, and the improvements.