The Malindi Environment and Land Court has ordered that the "status quo" be maintained on a disputed parcel of land (LR No. 13061) in Lamu County until October 14, following a legal challenge by 133 Chandavai residents. These residents are contesting the planned development of a $17 billion Dangote refinery, claiming the land as ancestral property. Justice Jane Onyango declined to certify the application as urgent, but directed respondents to file their responses within 14 days, with an inter partes hearing scheduled for October 14, 2026.
The court's decision, issued on September 28, comes just ahead of a planned groundbreaking ceremony on September 30, which President William Ruto is expected to attend. The order for "status quo" does not explicitly prevent the project from proceeding, as the court did not grant the applicants' request to stop the groundbreaking and development at this stage. This implies that parties retain their existing rights, including the ability to continue with the project.
The proposed Dangote refinery is projected to process up to 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day, potentially becoming the largest refinery in East and Central Africa. It is a key part of broader plans to position Lamu as an energy and logistics hub under the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor. Heavy equipment for the project, including 2,930 metric tonnes delivered by MV Da Yang, has already arrived at the Lamu deep seaport, with a total cost estimated at approximately $17 billion.
The Chandavai residents, who have occupied, cultivated, and developed portions of LR No. 13061 for generations, are seeking intervention over alleged destruction of property and fears of displacement. They want the court to halt further activities until their claims are addressed, including compensation and a clear resettlement plan. They have sued multiple government entities, including the Office of the President and the National Land Commission, alongside Dangote Industries and two contractors, arguing that the land acquisition process was unlawful and lacked proper compensation or identification of affected interests.
