Land acquisition in Kenya: The Achilles’ heel of the energy sector



Beatrice Nyabira,Partner Jane Nduati,Associate Judy Muigai, Director IKM Advocates, DLA Piper Africa member firm in Kenya

In recent years, Kenya has seen a significant increase in infrastructure-related investments, the majority of which focus on transportation and energy. This, coupled with Kenya’s potential for scalable renewable energy projects, positions the country to play an instrumental role in the African energy market. For many of these projects, issues relating to land have proven to be particularly challenging. Land is without a doubt an integral part of any  infrastructure project. The importance of land rights to the bankability of a project cannot be overstated, especially because a good number of the associated risks continue throughout the life of the project.

It is therefore not surprising that investors are wary when it comes to the land-related aspects of a project. This article seeks to analyze some of the pertinent land issues that impact investors in energy infrastructure projects in Kenya.


The Land Control Act (LCA) makes it mandatory for parties to obtain Land Control Board (LCB) consent for transactions involving, among others, the sale, transfer, lease, charge and subdivision of agricultural land, which includes land not within a municipality or township. Given the land-intensive nature of energy infrastructure

projects, most project sites are located in rural areas, invariably meaning the land is agricultural. The LCB is charged with ascertaining that certain conditions are met before granting consent, and it considers, among

other things, the effect of the proposed transaction on the economic development of the land.

More importantly, the LCB is required to refuse consent where the application is made by a non-citizen or a private company with any non-citizen shareholder. This poses a significant challenge considering the capital intensive nature of infrastructure projects, which in most instances calls for some level of foreign investment. Fortuitously,

the Land Control Act provides for an exemption from the requirement to obtain LCB consent where presidential exemption has been obtained. However, in a number of cases, project developers have to find innovative ways to navigate the LCB consent requirement, including through the creation of project companies which are initially

wholly owned by Kenyan citizens pending approval for change of use of project land to non-agricultural purposes.

Another option has been incorporating or converting project companies to public companies, which curiously are not as limited in terms of ownership of agricultural land. In comparison countries like South Africa only require government consent when it comes to subdividing agricultural property rather than in the event of acquisition by a foreigner. To support investors, the recently enacted Energy Act, 2019 requires national and county governments

to facilitate acquisition of land for energy infrastructure development. The Energy Act, however, does not elaborate on what form such facilitation would take.  One of the suggestions floated by industry stakeholders is that the government could facilitate land acquisition by exempting energy, and indeed all infrastructure projects, from the requirement to obtain LCB consent.


 In Kenya, freehold title over land cannot be held by a non-Kenyan. The law thus only allows foreigners to hold leasehold interest of a maximum of 99 years. This restriction is common on the continent and countries such as

Uganda and Ghana have similar requirements. This is in contrast to countries such as South Africa and Egypt, where foreigners can hold freehold interest over property without limitation. The silver lining in the Kenyan

context is that the maximum duration of the leasehold interest (99 years) is longer than the expected lifespan of energy projects, which are usually around 20 to 25 years.


As with other countries, inadequate or inconsistent community consultation can be fatal to a project, especially if community members hold a subjective or inflated estimation of what they are entitled to. It is not unusual for disputes to arise in cases where the community is concerned about what it considers to be poor compensation for

land, the effects of projects on the community and the perception of meager benefits from the project. The  importance of “social license” was most recently demonstrated in the Kinangop Wind Power Project, which was impacted by land and community disputes, thereby underpinning the importance of a proper and continuous community management plan.

Project developers must therefore consult effectively with communities in order to recognize legitimate land rights, assess the impact of the project on local land rights and livelihoods and establish conditions for a productive

relationship with the community. There are many success stories such as the Kipeto Wind Farm, that have  successfully negotiated compensation and leasing of land with over 100 land owners by dedicating time and resources to community engagement.


In addition to acquiring land rights over the main site where the plant will be developed, developers also have to consider easements and other similar land rights to cater for the transmission and distribution networks for the power that the proposed plant is to generate. This often involves negotiations with and compensation of multiple

land owners. This challenge is not exclusive to the private sector and is also a hurdle for government agencies such

as Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO). In July 2019, for example, the Business Daily newspaper reported that KETRACO was experiencing delays in completing power lines worth KES38.7 billion (USD387 million)

due to, among other issues, way-leaves acquisition. In cognizance of this issue, the Energy Act, 2019 has included provisions aimed at easing the process of acquiring rights of way and easements for energy projects.


Having a decentralized and somewhat manual land registry system has meant that the validity of title documents can at times not be authoritatively verified. Fortunately, however, significant land reforms designed to counter this problem are being prepared. The move to digitize the land registry records will be particularly helpful in this  regard.


 Land acquisition challenges can be a disincentive for investors in infrastructure development in Kenya. Positive strides in the country are already underway to address the concerns set out above. Although land-related project

challenges can be found throughout Africa, Kenya finds itself in a unique situation due to the prevalence of

relatively small parcels of land which are either privately owned or which constitute community land. In neighboring Tanzania, all land is vested in the government to hold on behalf of its citizens. Foreign companies can obtain a right of occupancy from the government, provided that they have a Certificate of Incentives issued by the Tanzania Investment Centre. Uganda, on the other hand, has similar land ownership structures to those of Kenya, but the Uganda Investment Authority has a one-stop-shop for investors, which includes an embedded land registry function which assists in the verification of land ownership.

Taking this into account, there are some practices which Kenya can borrow from its neighbors in order to reduce the current land acquisition difficulties in the energy sector.

Source: DLA Piper Africa Connected Issue 3: Energy in Africa – Innovation, Investment and Risk