The Nandi were the first to mount a determined military effort to defend their lands.
The viability of the settler economy in Kenya was predicated on availability of cheap labour to extract the maximum value of our natural resources. This model had been used widely before with great success in other colonies, notably in the West Indies and South East Asia.
The presence of Britain in East Africa was stimulated by designs to expand their empire and accumulate power and wealth to preserve their status as a powerful nation by exploiting the rich natural resources of Africa. This motive was couched in lofty ideals of the desire to bring human civilisation to a barbaric native people
In order to gain access to these resources the British had to first conquer and subdue the people and then take their land. This was achieved by the power of the gun and spurious treaties signed with illiterate chiefs. Once the land had been secured, the next target was easy to attain since the primary means of production had been taken away. As Kenya was largely an agrarian country that depended on human labour for cultivation, land and labour were inextricably connected.
The Nandi were the first to mount a determined military effort to defend their lands from alienation by the British between 1895 and 1905. Finally, their weapons consisting of bows, arrows, spears and leather shields proved to be no match for the mighty artillery of the invading British forces culminating in the assassination of their leader Koitalel arap Samoei in 1905. The Maasai were also known to be fearsome warriors but, they too were silenced into submission by the powerful guns of the imperialists notably during the Kedong Massacre of 1895.
In the pre-colonial era, African land tenure was intertwined in a system that governed ownership and access to or use of it. The first feature revolved around the possession of land and how it was acquired and the rituals that were required to be fulfilled for its acquisition.
The second feature dealt with the different rights given to the users of land to exploit it for various purposes. Land access rights were based on divergent types of groups who shared different rights to the same parcel of land such as grazing, cultivation, hunting or transit.
These rights were distributed on an equitable basis, hopefully, to guarantee peace among tribesmen who exploited land in different ways to secure their livelihoods. Professor Okoth-Ogendo (1976) argues that people living in the same village might claim divergent rights over the same parcel of land. African land tenure was guided by the principle of inclusiveness and community.
For example, in Kikuyu traditional society, the land was owned by a “mbari” (several households tracing their origins to a common male ancestor) and its administration was entrusted to a “muramati” (trustee) who was the nominal head of the “mbari”. However, there were people who did not have a kinship relationship with the founder of the land or did not belong to a certain “mbari”. These people included the “ahoi” (tenants-at-will) and “ndungata” (voluntary servants). Nevertheless, the “ahoi” and “ndugata” enjoyed conditional rights to the land which were inheritable just like those of the land owners’ sons.
New land was acquired by means of raiding, looting and trading that led to accumulation of livestock which was a medium of exchange. Taking possession of unoccupied land gave effect to individual ownership established by different forms of socialised labour.
When new land was acquired it required young men to cut and clear the forest and women to cultivate. To secure this labour power the land owner needed availability and accumulation of livestock with which to re-numerate the workers which in turn depended on raiding, looting and trading. Raiding and looting were more prevalent during periods of famine or disease epidemics.
It is these inclusive structures of land tenure that were systematically dismantled by the British firstly by creating and infiltrating a system of “chiefs” (who were traditionally trustees) such as Kinyanjui wa Gathirimu and Karuri wa Gakure.
With the help of British firepower, these chiefs were able to amass a lot of land and livestock by subduing their people and perceived enemies who stood in their way. Punitive expeditions were launched against any group of people who dared oppose British rule and alienation of land.
Gradually a new group of landless people began to emerge as pressure mounted on traditional land holdings while those previously deemed to be unoccupied were quickly transformed into Crown lands and allocated to European settlers.
Following a similar practice in southern Africa, a hut tax was introduced in Kenya in 1901 requiring each native hut to pay one rupee payable in kind or in labour, completely ignoring the principles of taxation. The tax was designed to encourage the “indolent” African population into wage employment, more specifically on settler farms at wages determined solely by the employer.
In 1914, many Africans were conscripted into the Kings African Rifles to participate in World War I with the assistance of chiefs who “persuaded” young men to enlist. Africans working on European farms and “mission” boys were exempted from military conscription.
In 1920, the “kipande” was introduced requiring every male African to wear the metal brace around their necks. The purpose of the “kipande” was to control, the mobility, price and supply of African labour.
The “honourable” sport of raiding and looting was halted by colonialism which created new social classes that were mutually exclusive. Access to means of production became dependent on the ability to earn wages and use of government and legal machinery which were only available through chiefs, court elders and “athomi” (the educated).
The objective had been achieved. The production factors of land and labour were entirely in the hands of the colonists and they would continue to tighten their grip in future years.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
