Krystalline Salt Limited & 3 others v The Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining and Petroleum & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that salt miners on private leasehold land remain regulated by the Mining Act, but keep their land and extraction rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the enactment of the Mining Act violated the appellants' Article 40 property rights
No violation: the Act regulates the appellants' activities but does not extinguish their leasehold rights or take away their right to extract salt, so the question of compensation does not arise
The court distinguished land rights, held under the grants under the Registration of Titles Act, from mineral rights, which vest in the national government in trust for the people under Article 62 and Section 6 of the Mining Act. Because the leases subsist and extraction continues, nothing was deprived within the meaning of Article 40(3). Consistently, the ELC's finding that the Act 'does not extinguish the rights' was endorsed.
Whether edible sea salt falls outside the Mining Act
Edible salt is within the Act: it is listed in the First Schedule and the definition of 'mineral' in Section 4 captures it irrespective of use
Section 4 defines 'mineral' broadly to include minerals specified in the First Schedule. Salt appears as item 42 under 'Construction and Industrial Minerals'. The court held that the labels 'Construction and Industrial' describe possible uses, not a limiting category, and the Act draws no distinction between edible and industrial salt.
Whether the appellants are subjected to two contradictory and mutually exclusive regulatory regimes
No: the Mining Act regime simply took over the royalty function previously exercised by the Commissioner of Lands; double payment of royalties would be unconscionable and is not permitted
The court agreed with the ELC that the appellants previously paid royalties under the old regime to the Commissioner of Lands and will now pay within the Mining Act regulations. There is no simultaneous double regulation of the right to harvest salt; the change is only in the regulatory framework under which royalties are collected.
Legal principles established
#- Regulation of mining activities over private land under the Mining Act does not extinguish the landholder's proprietary interest in the land; a distinction exists between rights over land and rights over minerals
- All salt, including edible sea salt, falls within the ambit of the Mining Act; the 'Construction and Industrial Minerals' classification in the First Schedule refers to possible use and does not exclude minerals put to other uses
- A mineral right-holder may not be made to pay royalties twice over under both the old land-law regime and the Mining Act; the new regime simply takes over royalty collection
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- 2.Orders accordingly (the judgment of the ELC, including the quashing of the letters dated 12th May 2021, stands undisturbed)
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Constitutional Petition dated 12th July 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules (first appellate jurisdiction to re-appraise the material before the ELC)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Krystalline Salt Limited & 3 others v The Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining and Petroleum & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1000/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.