Kakuzi loses bid to block surrender of 3,200 acres to Muranga settlers

The Environment and Land Court in Murang’a has dismissed an application by Kakuzi PLC seeking to halt the surrender of 3,200 acres of land to local communities.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Maxwell Gicheru, the court declined to grant Kakuzi leave to institute judicial review proceedings.

It also rejected the bid to issue conservatory orders to stop the implementation of the NLC’s recommendations contained in a Gazette Notice dated November 14, 2025.

The dispute stems from long-standing claims by local community groups who argued that their ancestors were forcibly displaced from the land during the colonial era and never resettled.

The NLC, acting under its constitutional and statutory mandate, investigated the claims and recommended that Kakuzi surrender 3,200 acres to facilitate the settlement of the most vulnerable members of the affected communities.

Kakuzi challenged the decision, arguing that the commission had exceeded its jurisdiction, violated its constitutional right to property, and acted unfairly.

The company also raised concerns about the economic impact of the directive, stating that it had invested approximately Sh11 billion in the land and that the surrender would affect its operations and shareholders.

However, the court found no merit in these claims.

Justice Gicheru held that the NLC acted squarely within its mandate under Section 15 of the National Land Commission Act, which empowers it to investigate historical land injustices and recommend appropriate remedies, including restitution, resettlement, and compensation.

“The 1st Respondent (NLC) did not act outside its jurisdiction,” the judge ruled, adding that the claims met the legal threshold for historical land injustices and that the commission was entitled to issue the recommendations it did.

The court further found that Kakuzi had been accorded a fair hearing throughout the process, noting that the company actively participated in the proceedings before the commission, filed responses and presented evidence.

There was no proof of bias, bad faith, or procedural impropriety on the part of the NLC, the judge noted.

On the question of timing, Kakuzi had argued that the Gazette Notice was published outside the tenure of the commissioners.

But the court dismissed this claim, finding no evidence to support it and holding that the publication was properly done within the law.

“Since the 1st Respondent (NLC) is a permanent commission, it would be expected that even after the commissioners left office, the business of the commission would continue,” the judge held.

Justice Gicheru also rejected a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney General of Kenya, which had argued that the matter was improperly before the court.

He clarified that the court retains supervisory jurisdiction over administrative bodies like the NLC, including the power to review their decisions.

Despite this, the judge emphasised that judicial review is limited to examining the legality and fairness of a decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself.

In this case, he found that Kakuzi had failed to demonstrate any procedural flaw or illegality that would warrant the court’s intervention.

“For the reasons already given, I find that stay/conservatory/temporary interdicts should not be issued halting the implementation of the 1st Respondent’s (NLC) determination because the Applicant (Kakuzi) has not proved it is entitled to the orders of judicial review,” the judge ruled.

The ruling effectively clears the way for implementation of the NLC’s recommendations.