Ludeshi (Suing as Chair of Isulu Natural resource Deposits (CBC) on behalf of the Community members of Isulu and Bushiangala Regions, Kakamega South Sub-County, Kakamega County) v Shanta Gold Ltd & 8 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3634 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court paused a community challenge to Shanta Gold's mining project because an earlier, nearly identical case was already pending in Milimani.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this suit is sub judice, in view of the pendency of Milimani ELC Petition No. E047 OF 2025; Isulu Natural Resources Community v Shanta Gold Ltd & Others
Key legal issues
#Whether the instant petition is sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
The petition is sub judice and the proceedings are stayed pending determination of the Milimani petition
The parties in the Milimani petition are substantially the same, with additions of parties in the instant petition being immaterial as the main disputants remain the same. The issues in both petitions - open pit gold mining in Isulu and Bushangala, environmental rights, public participation, licensing and forced eviction - are directly and substantially the same. The Milimani petition was filed earlier and is before a competent court. The petitioners' stated intention to withdraw it was not executed, so it remains pending.
Whether the petition should be struck out for abuse of process or merely stayed
A stay, not striking out, is the appropriate remedy
Because the Milimani petition remains pending, the court cannot proceed with the instant petition; the only order available is a stay of proceedings. The court did not strike out the petition for abuse of process. Further, since the petitioners filed two suits on the same subject matter, the court vacated all interim orders issued in this petition suo moto.
Legal principles established
#- Where there is a pending previously instituted suit in a competent court raising substantially similar issues, the court is barred from proceeding with a subsequent suit by the same parties in respect of similar issues
- An unexecuted intention to withdraw a pending suit has no legal effect; until withdrawal is granted by order, the suit remains pending and sub judice applies
Court orders
#- 1.The instant petition is stayed pending the hearing and determination of Milimani ELC PET No. E047 OF 2025
- 2.All interim orders issued in this petition are vacated by the court suo moto
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act (sub judice) invoked
Relief refused
#Striking out of the petition and the petitioners' notice of motion dated 27th January 2026 for abuse of court process
The court found the petition sub judice and stayed it rather than striking it out; the only order available was a stay
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
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.
This suit is therefore stayed pending the hearing and determination of Milimani ELC PET No. E047 OF 2025.
all interim orders issued in this petition are hereby vacated by this court suo moto
Intention, however good, until executed cannot carry any import in law.
Therefore, the addition of parties in the instant petition is immaterial as the main disputants remain the same.
Issues in the judgment
#The petitioners' identity is inconsistently stated - the supporting material refers to 'Isulu Natural Resources Deposits (CBO)' as the Milimani petitioner while the present petitioners are described as 'Isulu Natural Resources Community'
Spelling of the petitioner's representative's name varies between 'Bernard' and 'Benard' Amukaka Ludeshi
The case title of the second respondent is not given anywhere in the judgment; only the 1st respondent (Shanta Gold Ltd) is named
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ludeshi (Suing as Chair of Isulu Natural resource Deposits (CBC) on behalf of the Community members of Isulu and Bushiangala Regions, Kakamega South Sub-County, Kakamega County) v Shanta Gold Ltd & 8 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3634 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition (Kakamega) with Notice of Motion dated 13th April 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3634/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.