Residents of Ramula in Siaya County have won a major round in their fight against a planned gold mine after a court barred Shanta Gold from entering, prospecting, drilling, clearing or excavating private land in the area without the express consent of the registered owners.

The judgment, reported on Thursday, covers Ramula, Monungo and Uranga sublocations, where the company has been pursuing the Ramula Mboma gold project under mining licence application number 0200. Citizen Digital describes the court as the High Court, while Uzalendo News places the case before the Environment and Land Court in Siaya. The consolidated petitions by residents were partly successful.

Consent comes first

The court held that holding a prospecting licence does not on its own give a company the right to interfere with privately owned land. It declared that the express consent of registered owners, as required by the Mining Act, is a condition precedent before prospecting or mining rights can be granted or exercised over private property.

Among the key orders:

  • No mining licence may be issued for application 0200 until there is documentary proof that every affected registered owner has consented.
  • Other approvals required under Section 36(2) of the Mining Act, including from the Siaya County government where applicable, must be considered before any mineral right is recommended.
  • Objections lodged after a Kenya Gazette notice of August 1, 2025, and earlier objections by the petitioners, must be considered afresh, and approvals made before then must not be acted on.
  • The company and authorities may not resettle, relocate or displace residents except in strict compliance with the Mining Act.
  • No licence may be granted until a framework agreement on how benefits will be shared is concluded.

Information and the 2019 licence

According to Uzalendo News, the court also found that the licensing authority did not comply with Section 34 of the Mining Act when it issued the prospecting licence in August 2019, a lapse it said offended constitutional principles of good governance, fair administrative action and environmental protection.

The petitioners had complained that their requests for information about the project went unanswered. The court found that state agencies had published some project information through official notices and online portals, but it faulted Shanta Gold for its silence, describing the company's failure to respond as not commendable.

The respondents have six months to report back on compliance. Because the dispute was in the public interest, each side will bear its own costs.

Long-running fight

Opposition to the project has been building for months. In April, residents went to court arguing that the company had not disclosed the exact parcels it intended to use or secured landowners' express consent. The ruling comes as gold exploration in Siaya draws growing investor interest alongside community concern over land, compensation and the environment.

Shanta Gold had not publicly responded to the judgment by the time of publication.

Photos: Uzalendo News; The Eastleigh Voice. Thumbnail design: HAMASTA MEDIA.