Kiambu land rate hikes

Stung by the recent high increment of land rates in Ruiru, Kiambu County, some proprietor reached out for opinion. Incidentally, I’d been privy to a case where land rates to a parcel within the periphery of Kiambu town had shot from Ksh10,000 to about Ksh170,000. This a huge increment by any account. I suspect that many other proprietors in the county have silently agonized over such disproportionate increments.

Let’s be rational on this matter. County governments have the legal mandate to draw up valuation rolls, based on which they levy land rates for properties within any rateable jurisdictions. Under the law, Kiambu County, which had reportedly reviewed its valuation roll a while back, therefore acted within its mandate. Nairobi County has been in the process of reviewing its roll too, upon which land rates may be reviewed countywide. Other Counties may be at different stages on this matter. Land rates are an excellent source of revenue, and County governments must optimize on it. But guardedly.

Valuation roll and review

First, every county government must beware the background, mindset and capacity of its people. Governments also must beware the philosophy behind levying land rates. An ambitious and unfeeling approach to the matter of land rates could turn out counterproductive. Let me explain. Some counties have had valuation rolls upon which they’ve been charging land rates. However, for various reasons, they may have taken rather long to review such rates. That, however, isn’t the ratepayer’s problem, but rather that of management, and political leadership.

So come the moment of review, the wide change in proper values upon which rates are tied, would imply a commensurate change in land rates, as perhaps happened in the case of Kiambu. But the disproportionate increment of such statutory payments could be deemed punitive, and in practice, unaffordable. Expecting compliance in such circumstances is not pragmatic, and enforcement often meets with public protest, non-compliance or the unjustifiable sale of private property. Several proprietors may simply not be able to afford, and hence will not pay. Yet, it’d be impractical to put their land on sale en masse. The county and national governments may therefore need to address this disparity more considerately, even if this calls for revisiting the applicable legislation.

Need for sensitization and realistic land rate hikes

We also have many rural counties with lots of properties derived from the former trust lands. This being ancestral land, proprietors holding such freehold titles have lived thereon freely, without having to pay annual rates. They are however unaware that with changes in law and urban boundaries, their properties may now fall within rateable jurisdictions. In such cases, county governments must proceed with caution. Targeted sensitization would for instance help. The rates levied should also be kept realistic and affordable. County governments should also appreciate that compliance is motivated by the provision of adequate and quality services. This includes roads, power, water, drainage, waste disposal and social services to the residents. Good services mollify residents and incentivize payments.

Dated: 6th June, 2024