Ratieda Artisinal Miners Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited & 2 others v Amlight Resources Company Limited & 8 others; National Environmental Management Authority & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition 1 & 2 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 1676 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court halted unlicensed gold mining in Siaya, ruling that invalid landowner consent and skipped public participation taint mining licences.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring this suit
- 2.Whether the petitions have met the threshold for a constitutional petition
- 3.Whether the Respondent is licensed to carry out prospecting or mining activities on parcel number Siaya/Ramba/874
- 4.Whether there was public participation and environmental impact assessment
- 5.Whether the orders sought by the petitioners should issue
- 6.What orders commend as to costs
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the petitioners
The petitioners had locus standi as public interest litigants under Articles 22, 258 and 70 of the Constitution and Section 3 of EMCA; they need not show direct injury or mining rights
Applying Matemu and Joseph Leboo, the court held this was public interest litigation to protect the public from environmental degradation. The 2010 Constitution enlarged locus standi, permitting any person, association or member of a group to sue on behalf of others or the public. Article 70(3) expressly removes the requirement to demonstrate loss or injury, and Section 3 of EMCA allows suit in the public interest.
Threshold for a constitutional petition
The petitions met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold of precision
Applying Anarita Karimi Njeru and the Mutunga Rules, the court found the petitions specified the constitutional provisions allegedly violated, the particulars of the infringement, the responsible persons, and the remedies sought, thus giving adequate notice to the respondents.
Licensing of the mining activities
Mining was ongoing at the time of filing without a valid mining licence; the later-issued permits and licences were tainted by illegality because the underlying land sale agreement was void, and therefore unlawful
Section 10 of the Mining Act is mandatory. Evidence including cease-and-desist orders, charge sheets and photographs of a mining shaft showed mining was ongoing unlicensed. The sale agreement of 12 January 2024 by the 3rd Respondent, made before any grant, amounted to intermeddling under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, was void, and could not constitute owner's consent under Section 37 of the Mining Act; the licences derived from it could not stand.
Public participation and environmental impact assessment
There was no adequate public participation; only one meeting was held contrary to Section 17 of EMCA, and the EIA process came after mining had commenced
Public participation is a justiciable national value under Article 10. EMCA prescribes at least three widely publicised meetings; the respondents proved only one meeting held on 14th February 2024. The EIA project report was submitted on 9th April 2025, over a year after the petition was filed in April 2024, when mining had already started, so the statutory sequence was inverted.
Whether the reliefs should issue
Declarations and an injunction were merited since environmental degradation cannot be compensated in damages and the court cannot sanction an illegality, but the injunction was qualified to subsist only until valid licences are issued
Relying on Joseph Leboo, the court held loss to the environment is irreparable and not compensable in damages. Because the orders sought were a permanent injunction, the court tailored relief to preserve the respondents' opportunity to comply with licensing requirements and resolve the succession issues with the beneficiaries.
Jurisdiction over the validity of the sale agreement
The court had jurisdiction to examine the sale agreement to the extent it was proffered as consent under Section 37(2)(1)(a) of the Mining Act
The respondents argued the validity of the sale was a commercial/succession matter outside this court. The court held that because the agreement was relied upon as the consent grounding the mining licence under Section 37 of the Mining Act, it was entitled to comment on its validity to that extent.
Legal principles established
#- No person may search for, prospect or mine any mineral in Kenya without a permit or licence granted under the Mining Act; Section 10 is mandatory
- Mining rights over private land cannot be granted without the express consent of the registered owner, and consent founded on an illegal sale agreement cannot ground a valid mining licence
- A beneficiary without a confirmed grant cannot validly sell a deceased's immovable property; a later grant cannot cure prior intermeddling
- Under Article 70(3) and Section 3 of EMCA an environmental claimant need not demonstrate personal loss or injury to have locus standi
- EMCA requires at least three publicised public participation meetings; failure to hold them means there was no adequate public participation
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondent's unlicensed mining activities on land parcel Siaya/Ramba/874 are in violation of the Petitioners and its members' constitutional and fundamental rights to a clean and healthy environment under Article 42 of the Constitution
- 2.An injunction restraining the Respondents, their workers, employees, agents, servants and whomsoever acting on their instructions from mining, operating a gold mine, or continuing with any form of mining activity, extraction of gold and/or any other mineral ore, their attendant waste on and from land parcel Siaya/Ramba/874
- 3.That the injunction shall subsist until such a time as valid licences compliant with the law are issued to the Respondents
- 4.A mandatory order to the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties to take all necessary measures to prevent and/or discontinue any act or omission by the Respondents that is harmful to the environment
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 258, 42, 70 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (original constitutional/environmental jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court)
- Consolidated with
- ELC Petition No. 2 of 2024
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction in the absolute terms sought
The court granted only a qualified injunction subsisting until valid licences are issued, since the respondents retain an opportunity to regularise their position
Environmental restoration order sought by petitioners in Petition No. 2 of 2024
Not included among the orders issued in the disposition
Costs of the petition
Costs were denied on account of the public interest nature of the petitions
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
1) A declaration that the Respondent's unlicensed mining activities on land parcel Siaya/ Ramba /874 are in violation of the Petitioners and its members' constitutional and fundamental rights to a clean and healthy environment
2) An injunction hereby issues restraining the Respondents by themselves, their workers, employees, agents, servants and or whomsoever acting on their instructions from mining, operating a gold mine, or continuing with any form of mining activity, extraction of gold and / or any other mineral ore, their attendant waste on /and from land parcel Siaya / Ramba/874.
3) Provided that the orders in 2) above shall subsist until such a time as valid licences compliant with the law are issued to the Respondents.
4) A mandatory order hereby issues to the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties to take all necessary measures to prevent and / or discontinue any act or omission by the Respondents that is harmful to the environment.
Due to the public interest nature of the petitions herein I will order that each party shall bears its own costs.
If the consent was invalid in the first place, then it was not capable of giving rise to a valid mining license. The licensing process was tainted by illegality and can therefore not stand.
an applicant does not have to demonstrate that any person has incurred loss or suffered injury.
It is trite that nothing can come out of an illegality
Issues in the judgment
#The 1st Interested Party states the NEMA EIA licence was issued on 19th May 2025, but the judgment later records it as issued on 9th May 2025
The judgment inconsistently dates the 3rd, 8th and 9th Respondents' replying affidavit as dated 11th December, 2025 while other filings are dated December 2025 in a judgment delivered 17th March 2026 with submissions dated 2025/2026; also the judgment refers to affidavit 'dated 14th July 2025' for the 1st Respondent's replying affidavit in a petition filed April 2024, and at paragraph 132 refers to '1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents' though the 5th Respondent's case was not separately canvassed
The Interested Party's affidavit is stated to have been 'Sworn by Rop J. Kipkoech' rather than by the Interested Party itself
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ratieda Artisinal Miners Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited & 2 others v Amlight Resources Company Limited & 8 others; National Environmental Management Authority & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition 1 & 2 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 1676 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. 1 of 2024 (consolidated with ELC Petition No. 2 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1676/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.