Kenya’s land governance framework has undergone significant reform over the past decade. The Land Act, 2012 and the National Land Commission Act established a more consolidated framework for the administration and management of land, but important gaps have persisted, particularly around the registration and custodianship of public land and the resolution of historical land injustices.
The Land (Amendment) Act, 2025 and the National Land Commission (Amendment) Act, 2025 seek to address these gaps.
The amendments introduce clearer registration requirements for public land, clarify who should hold title on behalf of public entities, strengthen the National Land Commission’s framework for reviewing historical grants and dispositions, and establish a more structured process for addressing historical land injustices.
For public institutions, landowners, developers, purchasers and communities, these reforms have potentially significant implications for land ownership, due diligence, historical claims and the certainty of land transactions.
Why were the amendments necessary?
Kenya’s history of land administration has resulted in longstanding challenges around public land allocation, ownership and registration.
A significant amount of public land has historically remained unregistered, creating opportunities for encroachment, competing claims and irregular dealings. At the same time, disputes arising from historical land allocations have remained difficult to resolve despite the establishment of the National Land Commission and its mandate to investigate historical land injustices.
The amendments seek to move the framework from broad statutory mandates toward clearer procedures, responsibilities and timelines.
Mandatory registration of public land
One of the most significant changes under the Land (Amendment) Act, 2025 concerns the registration of allocated public land.
Previously, registration was not supported by a sufficiently firm statutory obligation, meaning some allocations remained incomplete and land records were not always consistently updated.
The amendments now require public bodies and institutions to apply to the Registrar for registration of allocated land. The Registrar, in turn, is required to ensure that registration takes place, publish the particulars of the registration in the Gazette and issue a certificate of title.
This is an important shift.
A more complete and traceable register of public land should make it easier to establish ownership, identify irregular transactions and reduce the risk of encroachment and competing claims.
For parties transacting with public entities, improved registration should also strengthen the reliability of land due diligence.
Clarifying who holds title to public land
The amendments also address a longstanding question: who should actually hold title where public land has been allocated to a public institution?
The revised framework distinguishes between different categories of public entities.
An incorporated public entity may hold title in its own name. Where the entity is unincorporated, title is held by the Cabinet Secretary responsible for the National Treasury as trustee. Land allocated to a county government is registered in the name of the relevant county.
This clarification is significant because uncertainty over custodianship can create governance gaps and complicate transactions involving public land.
By identifying the appropriate titleholder, the amendment strengthens accountability for public assets and reduces the possibility of public land effectively becoming “orphaned” within the registration system.
Review of historical grants and dispositions
The National Land Commission (Amendment) Act, 2025 strengthens the Commission’s mandate to review grants and dispositions of public land.
The amended Section 14 expressly covers grants and dispositions issued before 27 August 2010, providing a clearer temporal scope for the review process.
The amendments also introduce additional procedural safeguards. Determinations by the Commission must be published in the Gazette, and persons aggrieved by a determination have a route through which they may seek review.
The High Court is also given jurisdiction in relation to the registration of grants and dispositions that have been the subject of a Commission determination.
These changes are important for both accountability and transactional certainty.
They strengthen the framework through which potentially unlawful historical allocations may be scrutinised while providing greater procedural clarity for affected parties. Importantly, the amended framework also recognises protections applicable to bona fide purchasers, an important consideration for the stability of Kenya’s land market.
A clearer framework for historical land injustices
Perhaps the most consequential reforms relate to historical land injustices.
The previous framework imposed a five-year limitation period for bringing claims. The amendment removes that limitation and introduces a more structured statutory process for investigating and determining claims.
Historical injustices are defined within the amended framework as injustices occurring between 1895 and 2010, with criteria established for determining the admissibility of claims.
The Commission is also required to complete investigations within a prescribed period and publish its determinations in the Gazette. Persons aggrieved by a determination have a right to seek review, while the Commission is required to develop regulations to operationalise the process.
The amendment therefore does two things simultaneously: it expands access to the historical injustice mechanism by removing the previous limitation period, while introducing clearer procedural boundaries around how claims are investigated and resolved.
This could result in an increase in historical land claims. For landowners, developers, investors and purchasers, historical ownership and potential competing claims may therefore become an increasingly important component of land due diligence.
For affected communities, however, the reforms provide a clearer statutory pathway through which longstanding grievances may be considered.
Strengthening financial accountability at the National Land Commission
The amendments also introduce greater clarity around the management of the National Land Commission’s funds.
The new Section 26A provides for the management of Commission funds, including the maintenance of a dedicated bank account, and introduces protections concerning how those funds may be dealt with in legal proceedings.
Although less visible than the land registration and historical injustice reforms, these provisions form part of the broader effort to strengthen institutional accountability within the Commission.
What do the reforms mean in practice?
The legislation is now in force. The more important question is how effectively it will be implemented.
For public institutions and county governments, the reforms create clearer obligations around registration and custodianship of public land. Institutions should therefore review the status of land allocated to them and identify parcels that may require registration or regularisation.
For developers, investors, lenders and purchasers, due diligence may need to go beyond confirming the existence of a title. The history of the allocation, the identity and legal capacity of the registered proprietor, Gazette notices, previous National Land Commission proceedings and potential historical claims may all become increasingly relevant considerations.
For communities and persons pursuing historical land injustice claims, the amendments provide a clearer process for bringing and pursuing claims, together with defined procedural safeguards.
For the National Land Commission and land registries, the reforms create significant implementation responsibilities. Their effectiveness will depend on institutional capacity, adequate resourcing, appropriate regulations and consistent administration.
The implementation question
The Land (Amendment) Act, 2025 and the National Land Commission (Amendment) Act, 2025 represent an important development in Kenya’s land governance framework.
Mandatory registration should strengthen the integrity of public land records. Clear custodianship rules should improve accountability. The revised review framework provides greater certainty around historical grants and dispositions, while the new historical injustice provisions create a more structured route for addressing longstanding grievances.
However, legislation alone will not resolve Kenya’s land governance challenges.
The real measure of these reforms will be whether they translate into more reliable land records, fewer competing claims, greater transparency and a process for resolving historical grievances that is both credible and efficient.
For businesses and individuals dealing with land, the amendments also reinforce a broader lesson: effective land due diligence increasingly requires understanding not only what appears on the title today, but also the history, legality and institutional process behind it.
How Ashitiva Advocates can assist
Ashitiva Advocates LLP advises developers, landowners, purchasers, investors and public institutions on land registration, conveyancing, regulatory compliance and dispute resolution.
We also support clients with land due diligence, regulatory engagement and governance considerations arising from real estate transactions and development projects.
