Oricho & 38 others (Suing on their own behalf on behalf of the Ramula-Manungo Community and Public Interest) v Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 425 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Siaya Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear a community's mining dispute directly, but declined to stop gold prospecting pending the full hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the doctrine of exhaustion under the Mining Act and EMCA deprived the ELC of jurisdiction
The preliminary objection was not merited; section 154 of the Mining Act gives elective options and the ELC has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act, including over constitutional environmental claims
The court extracted sections 154-157 of the Mining Act and section 129 of EMCA. Section 154 uses 'may' and 'in any', making the three dispute-resolution routes disjunctive rather than sequential. The NET's jurisdiction under EMCA covers EMCA licences only, not Mining Act licences. Since the petition seeks declarations of constitutional violations which the Cabinet Secretary and NET cannot determine, and efficacious relief would not be available in those forums, the exhaustion objection fails.
Whether interim conservatory orders should issue pending the petition
The Notice of Motion was dismissed; no interim orders were justified
The court applied the conservatory order principles in Wilson Kaberia Nkunja. Allegations were contested and could not found a prima facie finding at interlocutory stage. Prospecting licences and the EIA licence had already been issued and could not be stopped; suspension would require merits determination. No evidence of evictions or immediate threat existed, and the petition could be heard on priority basis, so it would not be rendered nugatory.
Whether the preliminary objection was properly raised
It was properly raised as a pure point of law
Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Black's Law Dictionary, the objection concerned jurisdiction, and if upheld would dispose of the suit without ascertaining facts. The respondents did not dispute that the settled principles were met.
Legal principles established
#- Section 154 of the Mining Act gives a litigant three elective, disjunctive forums for disputes arising from a mineral right, including a court of competent jurisdiction; it does not mandate prior recourse to the Cabinet Secretary
- The ELC has original jurisdiction over mining and mineral-right disputes and over threatened violations of environmental rights under Articles 42, 69 and 70; the Mining Act did not oust that jurisdiction
- EMCA section 129 appeal mechanisms to the NET concern licences issued under EMCA and do not cover Mining Act licences
- Where the reliefs sought include declarations of constitutional violations which statutory tribunals cannot grant, the exhaustion doctrine will not bar the constitutional petition
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 14th September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 17/07/2025 is dismissed
- 3.There shall be no orders as to costs due to the public interest nature of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, Cap 8D
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oricho & 38 others (Suing on their own behalf on behalf of the Ramula-Manungo Community and Public Interest) v Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 425 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 17/07/2025 (Siaya ELC) - Notice of Motion dated 17/07/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/425/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.