Environment and Land Court Blocks Shanta Gold Mining in Siaya Over Landowner Consent

The Environment and Land Court in Siaya has issued a judgment that restrains Shanta Gold Company from carrying out any prospecting, drilling, excavation or related mining activities on private land in the Ramula, Munungu and Uranga sub-locations without the express consent of registered landowners.

The court held that the express consent of registered landowners is a condition precedent under Section 37(1) of the Mining Act, 2016, and therefore the prospecting licence PL 2019-0222 issued on August 1, 2019 does not automatically permit the company to enter or interfere with privately owned parcels.

In its ruling, the court faulted the relevant state licensing authority for failing to comply with Section 34 of the Mining Act in the issuance of the prospecting licence, finding the process infringed constitutional provisions on property rights and fair administrative action.

The judgment directed that no mining licence be granted for application number 0200, which relates to the proposed Ramula project, until documentary evidence shows that every registered owner of the affected private land has given express consent, and instructed the Mineral Rights Board to consider the approvals required under Section 36(2) of the Mining Act, including any approvals from the Siaya County government.

The court also ordered that objections filed in response to the Kenya Gazette notice published on August 1, 2025, together with earlier objections, be reconsidered afresh before any decision on the mining licence is made, and that any recommendations or approvals issued before those objections are addressed must not be acted upon.

Further orders restrained the respondents from resettling, relocating or displacing residents of the three sub-locations except in strict compliance with Section 153 of the Mining Act, and required that a framework agreement on benefit-sharing be concluded in accordance with Article 69(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 109(1) of the Mining Act before a licence can be issued.

Community lawyer Maxwell Magawi, representing local residents, welcomed the decision, stating, “Today marks a very important day for us because we have shown up to witness our victory,” and adding, “The gold company has no right whatsoever to force residents into compulsory acquisition or ground-breaking operations at this point.”

The court declined to award costs, directing each party to bear its own expenses, and ordered all parties to file a comprehensive status report on compliance with the judgment within six months.