Kenya’s New Land Law: How the Land (Amendment) Act 2025 Locks Down Public Assets

Today we're tackling something pretty significant, the new Land (Amendment) Act, 2025. From the onset, the Amendment Act looks like it's designed to fundamentally change how public land, is registered and secured in Kenya. This brief is meant to unpack what problems the drafters were trying to fix. And what does it actually mean for, say, a public institution or even a private developer on the ground.

Starting with the core process changes, Section 3 of the Amendment Act amends Section 12 of the original Land Act by adding new subsections 13 through 16, dealing specifically with land allocated by the National Land Commission. Subsection 13 in particular puts an obligation on public bodies to apply to the registrar for registration of land allocated by the Commission. Previously, this obligation was perhaps more voluntary, leading to gaps in the public register, and this shift from an implied process, or a ‘may’, to a definite ‘shall’ is central to this reform.

Historically, land could be allocated to, say, a government agency, and it is ‘known’ in the public domain that it is public land, but the process was rarely regularized through a formal application up until issuance of the proper Title. This effectively left the land vulnerable to encroachment, disputes and litigation due to lack of proper records in the relevant land register.

Section 12(14) proceeds to close the loop on the other side by compelling the Registrar to register the application, provided it comes in in the right format for land allocated by the commission. This standardizes the whole allotment/allocation process, makes it auditable, non-negotiable and unimpeachable. It's about securing these huge national assets with the highest possible degree of legal certainty.

Land set aside during private developments is similarly dealt with in the updated Section 12(15). It provides that the registrar shall register land set aside for a public purpose, but this time by persons or a land-buying company. Whereas previously, as per Section 58 in Paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act 2019, developers were required to set aside land for public use, but without the actual formal transfer of title, this new subsection 15 means that the moment the development gets its planning approval, it automatically triggers the mandatory registration of that public portion under the Land Act. The physical planning approval now directly initiates the legal status of that public land

This ensures that in the event the developer goes bust later or sells the project on, that land designated for the public is already legally secured for use by the public. This a huge step for securing public amenities, especially at the local level. It doesn't matter if the land came via the commission or a private developer, it gets locked down legally.

Section 12 (16) captures the final steps, title and transparency. Hereunder, the Registrar must publish a notice in the Gazette, just laying out the details of the registration, making it a matter of public record, before actual issuance of the certificate of title. The Act gets very specific about who holds the title. It lays out three distinct ways the title certificate must be issued, depending on who the recipient public entity is, and getting this right is administratively crucial for accountability. The three categories are outlined as follows:

1. If the public entity is incorporated, meaning it has its own legal personality, like a state corporation, the title is issued directly in the name of that entity.

2. If it's for a county government, the title is issued directly in the name of that county government.

3. In the case of an unincorporated public entity, the Cabinet Secretary to the National Treasury as trustee

The third category above tackles a really tricky structural problem. Unincorporated public entities are those entities that serve a public function, but aren't formally registered as a distinct corporate body. Maybe a local committee set up for a specific project, like a water management committee, or perhaps a government task force, or even an older school that hasn't yet achieved full corporate status. It lacks its own separate legal identity.

Historically, this has been a problem for land registration before because it created a legal vacuum. If land was registered to this sort of vaguely defined committee or group who legally owned it, who had the authority to sign documents relating to it, who could defend it in court if there was a dispute? It was a significant loophole where accountability could just dissolve.

To address this, subsection 16 provides a very clear, high-level anchor point. For any unincorporated public entity receiving public land under these provisions, the title certificate must be issued in the name of the cabinet secretary responsible for the national treasury as trustee. So, the Treasury CS doesn't own it personally, but holds it legally on behalf of that unincorporated body. It centralizes the legal responsibility, it immediately defines who has the legal authority, and, importantly, the fiduciary duty, the duty to act in the best interest of the beneficiary for managing that asset.

If we summarize the overall impact of the foregoing amendments as discussed, the big picture is that it's a really determined push towards standardization, making processes mandatory where they might have been optional or unclear, and fundamentally enhancing the legal certainty around how public land is held in Kenya.

It doesn't just define how public land gets registered, forcing both public bodies and private developers to formalize things, but crucially, it nails down who is legally accountable for holding the title, depending on how that entity is structured, essentially de-risking public land, protecting them from administrative mess-ups or incomplete records. De-risking through formalization and clear accountability impacts everything from huge national infrastructure projects, things allocated by the commission.

How having the single national office, the Treasury CS, acting as the ultimate legal gatekeeper for potentially thousands of very different, very local assets, might that affect things like resolving local land disputes or decisions about how that land is actually used down the line remains to be seen. Does that centralization help or hinder local management and decision making? It concentrates immense legal authority and the practical implications of that concentration.

That's definitely something worth keeping a close eye on as this Amendment Act beds in.