The Environment and Land Court in Siaya has dealt a major setback to Shanta Gold’s proposed Ramula mining project, restraining mining-related activities on private land where the express consent of registered owners has not been obtained.
In its judgment, the court barred the company from entering affected private parcels, conducting prospecting or drilling, clearing vegetation, excavating or undertaking other mining-related works without complying with the Mining Act, 2016.
The orders affect parts of Ramula, Munungu and Uranga sublocations in Siaya County, where the proposed gold mining project has raised concerns among residents over land ownership, environmental protection and community rights.
The court affirmed that the constitutional right to own property must be protected, declaring that the express consent of registered landowners is a prerequisite for granting prospecting and mining rights over private land under Section 37(1) of the Mining Act.
The court also faulted the handling of Prospecting Licence PL 2019-0222, issued on August 1, 2019, finding that the licensing process had failed to comply with Section 34 of the Mining Act.
According to the judgment, the failure infringed constitutional provisions on national values and principles of governance, fair administrative action and environmental protection.
In a further order, the court directed that no mining licence be granted under application number 0200 for the Ramula project in the affected areas until the relevant authorities establish, through documentary evidence, that the express consent of registered owners of all affected private parcels has been obtained.
The Mineral Rights Board was also directed to consider the approvals required under Section 36(2) of the Mining Act, taking into account the nature and status of the land involved.
These include approvals from relevant authorities, including the Siaya County government where required by law.
The court ordered that objections submitted following a Kenya Gazette notice published on August 1, 2025, together with earlier objections filed by or on behalf of the petitioners, be reconsidered before a decision is made on the mining licence application.
Any recommendations or approvals made before the publication of the notice are not to be acted upon, with the application required to undergo fresh consideration after the objections have been heard.
The orders further restrain the relevant respondents from taking steps to resettle, relocate or displace residents of Ramula, Munungu and Uranga outside the requirements of Section 153 of the Mining Act.
The court also directed that no mining licence be issued for the proposed project until a framework agreement on benefit-sharing arrangements has been concluded in accordance with Article 69(1)(a) of the Constitution, Section 109(1) of the Mining Act and the applicable regulations.
The agreement is intended to establish how benefits arising from the proposed mining venture will be shared, addressing a key concern surrounding the project’s impact on the affected communities.
The judgment also examined complaints by residents who said their attempts to obtain information about the project and the company’s compliance with environmental and mining laws had not yielded satisfactory responses.
The petitioners told the court that they had sought information from the mining company and relevant authorities through verbal inquiries and written correspondence.
In considering the complaints, the court distinguished the obligations of state agencies from those of the private company under Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to information.
While the court noted that state authorities had made some project information publicly available through official notices and relevant portals, it observed that the company’s failure to respond to information requests was not commendable.
The court considered whether the petitioners had been denied information necessary to safeguard their property rights and participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their community.
Petition No. 003 of 2025 partly succeeded, with the court noting that the issues raised had been addressed through orders issued in the consolidated petitions.
The ruling places landowner consent, regulatory compliance, public participation and benefit-sharing arrangements at the centre of any further steps towards licensing the proposed Ramula mining project.
