A second group of Lamu residents protest outside the Malindi law courts in Malindi town, Kilifi County on Monday, September, 28, 2026 after filing a notice of motion to stop the ground breaking ceremony of the Dangote refinery project until they are compensated and offered a resettlement plan. Photo by Ben Okweingoti. 
By Ben Okweingoti
The much-touted Sh.2 trillion Aliko Dangote oil refinery project in Lamu County has suffered another setback after 133 residents moved to court seeking to stop its planned launch by President William Ruto on Wednesday.
The residents from Chandavai have filed a case at the Malindi Law Courts challenging what they describe as the unlawful takeover and destruction of land their families have occupied, cultivated and developed for generations.
The plaintiffs, led by Suleiman Ali and Kanywa Kamunde, say they support the refinery project but want the government to first address their concerns through a clear resettlement plan and compensation for affected families and property.
They have sued the Office of the President, the Cabinet Secretary for Defence, the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning, the Attorney General, the National Land Commission (NLC), the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor Development Authority, the Lamu County Government and Dangote Industries, alongside two companies described as contractors.
The residents claim they have for generations occupied, cultivated and developed identifiable portions of land within or forming part of LR No. 13061 in Chandavai.
They have asked the court to stop further construction and excavation, arguing that continued works would destroy crops, trees, homes and other property while permanently altering the character of the disputed land.
“Continued construction or excavation will cause further destruction of crops, trees, structures and other property and will materially alter the physical character of the land, thereby making the dispute substantially more difficult to resolve,” the plaintiffs state in court documents.
According to the plaint, the affected families have historically relied on the land for farming and livestock keeping and have established homes, mosques and shrines on the disputed parcels. Some families have also buried their relatives on the land.
The residents maintain that the land is community land under the stewardship of the Lamu County Government and that they have occupied it peacefully for generations without previous disputes over ownership.
They argue that some of the property at risk cannot be adequately replaced through monetary compensation, particularly ancestral homes, graves, mature trees, long-standing occupation sites and community structures.
The residents allege that on August 7, 2024, officers and agents associated with the national government and LAPSSET entered the disputed land with heavy machinery and bulldozers, destroying crops, trees and other property without prior notice, consultation or compensation.
They claim local administrators later informed them that the land had previously been acquired by the government for the LAPSSET project before being allocated to the Ministry of Defence for infrastructure works around Manda Bay.
The alleged works included road construction and expansion of facilities around the Kenya Navy Base at Manda Bay, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.
According to the residents, some families were instructed not to interfere with the works and were promised compensation for destroyed crops and other losses, while others were forced to move into rented houses to make way for the developments.
The plaintiffs further allege that soil testing and other preparatory activities linked to the proposed refinery began in July 2026, with local administrators informing them that the Dangote project would proceed alongside the LAPSSET and Manda Bay infrastructure developments.
They also claim that on September 10, 2026, police officers, chiefs and other government agents cleared one of the disputed parcels, informing residents that the site would be used for the refinery's groundbreaking ceremony.
The residents say they later learnt, around September 20, that the government had commenced a compulsory acquisition process involving land in Lamu.
They allege that the process is intended to compensate absentee landowners whose titles they claim were unlawfully or fraudulently obtained, while excluding families who have actually occupied and used the land for generations.
The plaintiffs argue that the absence of registered title deeds does not extinguish their interests in the land or their entitlement to compensation.
They rely, among other provisions, on Article 40(4) of the Constitution and provisions of the Land Act governing compulsory acquisition.
The residents contend that people actually occupying and using the land should be identified and recognised as persons with compensable interests, even where their interests are not reflected in the land register.
They accuse the government agencies and other defendants of failing to follow the statutory procedure for compulsory acquisition, including issuing the required notices, conducting surveys and valuations, identifying all persons with an interest in the land, holding inquiries and providing compensation before taking possession.
The residents also allege that they were not adequately consulted or given meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their land and livelihoods.
They claim that crops, trees and other property were destroyed without proper valuation or compensation.
The plaintiffs further allege violations of their constitutional rights, including the right to property under Article 40, the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 and the right of access to information under Article 35.
They have also raised environmental concerns, alleging that the defendants failed to comply with requirements under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act and applicable environmental assessment procedures.
The residents' case is that government agencies cannot lawfully take possession of land, displace occupants or destroy their property before completing the legally required compulsory acquisition process.
They argue that lawful acquisition requires the identification of the affected land and all persons with interests in it, issuance of statutory notices, an inquiry, valuation and assessment of compensation, followed by payment or lawful deposit of compensation before possession is taken.
The plaintiffs have also accused the NLC, the State Department for Lands and the Lamu County Government of failing to protect or formally recognise their claimed interests in the disputed land, leaving them vulnerable to displacement and loss of property.
The case now places long-standing claims of customary and community occupation in Chandavai at the centre of competing development plans in Lamu, including LAPSSET projects, military infrastructure around Manda Bay and the proposed Dangote refinery.
