• Alex Amisi Muhandale Kenyatta University



Land use patterns, land use systems, land tenure system


Land has remained one of the most basic and valuable economic resource right from the pre-colonial to the post independent Kenyan society. The success or failure of every society is always pegged on how prudent the society manages the resources within its reach in the midst of changes, challenges and opportunities that time and space avails every single moment. Being part of the Kenyan society, the Maragoli community has never been left out of the land question that has troubled Kenya over time. The pre-colonial Maragoli society had a land tenure system which was characterized by communal control of land together with its resources and practiced individual land ownership. Though land was communally owned at the general level, it was individually owned and tilled at the family level. The basis of land administration was the customary law executed by the elders who had the overall powers over the production resource. Through colonial policies such as alienation of the Africans’ land, confiscation of livestock, introduction of taxes and the cash economy; all these mechanisms brought about disequilibrium in the Maragoli pre-colonial land use. With this in mind therefore, this paper examined the nature and realities in resource struggle and the future of such struggles especially in regard to land use in the post-independence Kenya, using the case of the Maragoli. Through the articulation theory, this paper demonstrates that the interaction between the pre-colonial Maragoli land use practices and the colonial land policies greatly impacted on the Maragoli socio-economic and political structures. Due to the cash crop economy, the traditional Maragoli communal attitudes towards land as a resource are fading out resulting into individual emphasis on land use. This individual emphasis on land use is the major cause of uneconomical subdivision of land, insecurity and increased poverty. It is from the above perspective that the paper analyses the post-independence Maragoli land situation, some of the key causes of uneconomical subdivision of land and the possible solutions.

Author Biography

Alex Amisi Muhandale, Kenyatta University

M.A Student at Kenyatta University, History and Political studies


Alila P.O & Atieno R. (2006). Agricultural policy in Kenya: Issues and Processes; Institute for Development Studies University of Nairobi, Nairobi

Amisi M.A (2019), Patterns of Land use Among the Maragoli of Sabatia Constituency; 1900-2010, Unpublished M.A Thesis, Kenyatta University

Aseka E.M, (1989). A Political Economy of Buluhya, 1900-1964. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Kenyatta University

Wagner G. (1956). The Bantu of Western Kenya, Nairobi: O.U.P.

Were, M., et. Al. (2005). Kenya’s Reform Experience: What Have We Learnt? KIPPR Working Paper No. 12, Nairobi

CBS (2000). Poverty in Kenya.Vol.1 Incidence and Depth of Poverty. Nairobi, Kenya: Central Bureau of Statistics Ministry of Finance and Planning p. 11-20

Report of the Committee on Native Land Tenure in the North Kavirondo Reserve, HMSO (1930) London

Report of the Committee on Native Land Tenure in the North Kavirondo Reserve, HMSO (1933) London

Republic of Kenya, 2009, Vihiga District Environment Action Plan (VDEAP), 2009-2013, Nairobi, Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, National Environment Management Authority.

Republic of Kenya (2004). Strategy for Revitalising Agriculture 2004-2014, Ministry of Agriculture & Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Nairobi.

Republic of Kenya (2001).Economic Survey 2001. Government Printers, Nairobi, Kenya

Republic of Kenya (1999). Kenya Human Development report 1999.

Republic of Kenya (1995).Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing.

Agricultural Sector Review 1995, ASIP secretariat, Kilimo House.

UNDP (2002).Kenya Human Development Report, UNDP, Nairobi.




How to Cite

Muhandale, A. A. (2020). RESOURCE STRUGGLE, RESULTANT REALITIES AND THE FUTURE OF MARAGOLI LAND USE. Journal of Agricultural Policy, 3(2), 45–59.