The planned groundbreaking of a Sh2 trillion oil refinery in Lamu will proceed after the Environment and Land Court declined to issue orders stopping the launch.
Justice Jane Onyango, sitting at the Malindi Environment and Land Court, said the applicants had sought to stop the groundbreaking and development of the project, but the court did not grant the request.
Instead, the court directed that the status quo on L.R. No. 13061, within the Hindi/Manda Magogoni area of Lamu County, be maintained until October 14, 2026, when the application will be heard inter partes.
The judge also declined to certify the application as urgent and directed the respondents to file their responses within 14 days.
Parties in the case have also been cautioned against violating the order.
"Take notice that any disobedience or non-observance of the order of the court served herewith will result in penal consequences to you and any other person(s) disobeying and not observing the same," reads the court filing.
More than 130 residents of Chandavai in Lamu County had moved to court seeking to stop what they described as the unlawful takeover and destruction of land their families have occupied and cultivated for generations.
The 133 plaintiffs sued the Office of the President, the Cabinet Secretary for Defence, the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning, the Attorney General, the National Land Commission, the LAPSSET Corridor Development Authority, the Lamu County Government and Dangote Industries, together with two companies described as contractors.
The residents claim they have, for generations, occupied, cultivated and developed identifiable portions of land comprised in or forming part of L.R No. 13061 in Chandavai.
They argue that continued construction and excavation could destroy crops, trees, homes and other property and permanently alter the character of the disputed land.
“Continued construction or excavation will cause further destruction of crops, trees, structures and other property and will materially alter the physical character of the land, thereby making the dispute substantially more difficult to resolve,” the plaintiffs state in court documents.
The residents say their claim is based on long-standing occupation, customary or community tenure, possession and beneficial use of the land, although they do not hold formal title deeds.
According to the plaint, their families have historically used the land for farming and livestock keeping and have built homes, mosques and shrines on it. Some family members are also buried on the disputed land.