Court Dismisses Kakuzi Bid to Halt 3,200-Acre Land Surrender

The Environment and Land Court (ELC) in Murang'a has dismissed a legal bid by agricultural firm Kakuzi PLC to block a state directive. The order requires the company to cede 3,200 acres of land for the resettlement of local squatters.

Justice Maxwell Gicheru rejected the firm's application to initiate judicial review proceedings. The judge also declined to issue conservatory orders that would have halted the implementation of recommendations made by the National Land Commission (NLC).

These recommendations, published in a Gazette Notice on November 14, 2025, directed the agricultural firm to surrender the land. The decision represents a critical development in a land dispute that has spanned several decades.

The conflict involves local community groups who claim that their ancestors were forcibly evicted from their ancestral lands during the colonial era. The dispossessed communities were never properly resettled, leading to long-term grievances.

Following investigations into these historical claims, the NLC recommended the land surrender. The commission aimed to facilitate the resettlement of vulnerable community members. The Kakuzi Division Development Association (KDDA) is among the primary groups seeking the land.

Kakuzi PLC, a prominent agribusiness listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE), contested the directive. The company argued that the state commission had exceeded its legal jurisdiction. It also claimed the directive violated its constitutional right to property.

The firm expressed concerns regarding the financial implications. Kakuzi PLC stated that it had invested approximately Sh11 billion in the land. It warned that losing the acreage would disrupt its agricultural operations and affect shareholders.

However, the court found no merit in these arguments. Justice Gicheru ruled that the NLC acted within its legal mandate. Under Section 15 of the National Land Commission Act, the commission has the power to investigate historical land injustices.

The judge noted that the NLC is empowered to recommend remedies such as restitution, resettlement, and compensation. He concluded that the commission did not act outside its jurisdiction when issuing the recommendations.

Furthermore, the court ruled that Kakuzi PLC was granted a fair hearing. The company actively participated in the NLC proceedings by filing responses and presenting its evidence. The judge found no proof of bias.

The agricultural firm also challenged the validity of the Gazette Notice. It argued that the publication occurred after the terms of the commissioners had expired. The court dismissed this claim, stating the NLC is a permanent body.

The judge clarified that the work of the commission continues even when individual commissioners leave office. He also rejected a preliminary objection from the Attorney General (AG) regarding the court's jurisdiction.

Justice Gicheru emphasised that while the court has supervisory authority over administrative bodies, judicial review only examines the legality of the process. In this case, Kakuzi PLC failed to prove any procedural flaws.

The ruling lifts the temporary protections that previously shielded the firm from surrendering the property. This decision allows the government to begin the process of subdivision and allocation of the land.

Although Kakuzi PLC has been allowed to appeal the decision, the court refused to issue any fresh injunctions. The lack of an injunction means that the land restitution process can move forward.

This ruling is viewed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) as a step toward addressing historical land injustices in the region. The lobby group has supported the claimants for over two decades.