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

The High Court has barred Shanta Gold from entering, prospecting, drilling, clearing, excavating or undertaking any works on private land in Ramula, Monungo and Uranga sublocations in Siaya County without the express consent of the registered landowners.

The court has also stopped the mining company from proceeding with activities on any parcel of private land where the required consent has not been obtained under the Mining Act.

The orders follow a consolidated petition challenging the proposed Ramula Mboma mining project and the manner in which the prospecting and mining approvals were being processed.

The court ruled that the express consent of registered owners is a condition precedent to the granting or exercise of prospecting and mining rights over private land.

It declared that the prospecting licence issued to the mining company does not give it authority to enter, prospect, drill or otherwise interfere with private land where the consent of the registered owner has not been obtained.

The court further ordered the relevant mining authorities not to grant a mining licence for application number 0200 relating to the Ramula Mboma project until they are satisfied, through documentary evidence, that the express consent of every registered owner of private land affected by the application has been obtained.

The authorities have also been directed to ensure that all other approvals required under Section 36(2) of the Mining Act are obtained, depending on the nature of the land and the people affected.

The court further directed that objections lodged against the mining application must be considered afresh and that any recommendation or approval made before consideration of those objections should not be acted upon.

Shanta Gold and the relevant authorities have also been restrained from taking steps towards the resettlement, relocation or displacement of residents of Ramula, Monungo and Uranga except in strict compliance with the Mining Act.

In another significant order, the court directed that no mining licence should be granted for the project until a framework agreement on the beneficiaries of the mining venture is put in place as required by the Constitution and the Mining Act.

The respondents have been given six months to report to the court on compliance with the judgment.

The court said that, given the public-interest nature of the case, each party would bear its own costs.

The orders were issued in a case in which residents had raised concerns over access to information, landowner consent and compliance with environmental and mining laws.

The court found that while state agencies had made information on the project publicly available, the position regarding information held by the private mining company was different.