7.2 Kajiado County Asset and Liability Committee methodology

manual to assist them in data collection. Box 7.2 exhibits the terms of reference and methodology used by the Kajiado CALC team in assets and liability data collection.

The CALC team strongly focused on land assets, collecting information on public and community land. It did an exemplary job in identification, registration, and size estimation of land parcels (table 7.4). The TA report included 836 parcels of land; in contrast, the team verified 685 parcels, because the TA list included much repetition of parcels and only a few reference numbers. The CALC team also identified 70 additional parcels that were not in the TA list, while public consultations helped identify another 29 parcels. Finally, the CALC team managed to identify a total 784 parcels of land. The team further made efforts to retrieve land reference numbers from the national land registry and other land reference documents and managed to verify 749 parcels in land registries. Consequently, the number of parcels without reference numbers dropped to 35.

The TA report included 476 parcels with estimated sizes. The CALC increased this to 595 after the exercise. However, these sizes remained only estimated and not surveyed, and most of the parcels did not have ownership documents. Public consultations revealed that 10 parcels of land set aside for public utilities had been encroached; for example, the 10-acre land for Loitokitok District Stadium was occupied by the prisons department, while the Loitokitok and Masimba bus parks had been encroached by private individuals. The county has commenced procedures to restore ownership, but this lengthy process is still underway.

The buildings with adjacent structures that the CALC team captured in the inventory included schools, markets, government offices, water points, cattle dips, housing estates, safari club, and others. A total of 98 buildings was captured,

BOX 7.2

Kajiado County Asset and Liability Committee methodology

The process was guided by the guidelines and tools developed by the Interagency Technical Committee (IATT) per the classes of the assets and liabilities. The following data collection strategies to collect both primary and secondary data were also used:

Interviews. These were conducted with key informants and officers at the county headquarters, subcounties, and those who previously worked in the defunct local authorities, including treasurers and clerks.

Document review. The team examined primary supporting documents such as title deeds, logbooks, asset registers, valuation reports, certificates, and other related records. Secondary data were collected through valuation reports, auditor-general reports, handover and takeover reports, land registry records, adjudication registers, preliminary index maps, registry index maps, bank statements, financial statements, and review of Local Authorities Integrated Financial Operations Management System (LAIFOMS) reports.

Physical inspection and verification of assets through site visits. Public participation. Additional data were collected from the public, members of which submitted written memoranda following public notices in both print and electronic media sent to churches and public gatherings requesting information on assets and liabilities of defunct local authorities.

Data were analyzed using the narrative method and presented using thematic analysis.

Source: Kajiado CALC 2017.