File image of a judge's gavel. PHOTO | COURTESY

The Environment and Land Court has restrained Shanta Gold from undertaking mining related activities on private land in parts of Siaya County without the express consent of registered landowners.

Shanta Gold has suffered a setback after the Environment and Land Court in Siaya issued orders restricting mining activities linked to the proposed Ramula project in Ramula, Munungu and Uranga sublocations.

In its judgment, the court restrained the mining company from entering private land, conducting prospecting or drilling, clearing vegetation, excavating or undertaking any other works on parcels where the express consent of registered owners had not been obtained in accordance with the Mining Act, 2016.

The court held that the constitutional right to own property must be protected and that no prospecting or mining rights can be exercised over private land without strict compliance with the law.

It declared that the express consent of registered landowners, as required under Section 37(1) of the Mining Act, is a prerequisite for granting prospecting and mining rights over private land.

The judgment also faulted the first respondent, the relevant state licensing authority, over its handling of Prospecting Licence PL 2019-0222, which was issued on August 1, 2019.

The court found that the licensing process had failed to comply with Section 34 of the Mining Act, a failure it said infringed constitutional provisions on national values and principles of governance, fair administrative action and environmental protection.

In another significant order, the court directed that no mining licence be granted for application number 0200 relating to the Ramula project, insofar as it concerns 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 court further directed the Mineral Rights Board to consider the approvals required under Section 36(2) of the Mining Act, taking into account the nature and status of the land affected by the proposed project.

These include applicable approvals from relevant authorities, including the Siaya County government where required by law.

The court also ordered that objections submitted in response to the Kenya Gazette notice published on August 1, 2025, alongside earlier objections by or on behalf of the petitioners, be considered afresh 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 to be reconsidered after the objections have been heard.

The court also issued orders restraining 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.

It further 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 address the sharing of benefits arising from the proposed mining venture.

The judgment also examined complaints by residents that attempts to obtain information about the proposed project and the company's compliance with environmental and mining laws had not yielded satisfactory responses.

The petitioners said they had sought information from the relevant authorities and the mining company through verbal inquiries and written correspondence.

The court distinguished between the obligations of state agencies and those of the private company under Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to information.

While the court found that the state authorities had made certain project information publicly available through official notices and relevant portals, it noted that the company's failure to respond to requests for information was not commendable.

The court examined whether the petitioners had been denied information necessary to protect their property rights and participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their community.

The court ruled that Petition No. 003 of 2025 partly succeeded to the extent that the issues raised were addressed by the orders issued in the consolidated petitions.