LAMU, Kenya — More than 130 residents of Chandavai in Lamu County have moved to court seeking to stop the proposed Dangote oil refinery, accusing the government and project developers of threatening to displace them from land they say their families have occupied for generations.
The 133 residents 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 and the Lamu County Government.
They have also sued Dangote Industries and two companies described in the court papers as contractors.
The case comes as preparations continue for a planned September 30 groundbreaking ceremony for the proposed Sh2 trillion refinery in Lamu.
The residents want the court to halt construction and excavation on the disputed land, arguing that continued works could destroy homes, crops, trees and other property before their claims to the land are determined.
They say their families have occupied, cultivated and developed identifiable portions of land forming part of LR No. 13061 in Chandavai for generations.
According to the plaint, the residents have used the land for farming and livestock keeping and have constructed homes, mosques and shrines on it.
They also say some family members are buried on the disputed parcels.
Residents challenge land takeover
The plaintiffs argue that their lack of formal title deeds does not extinguish their interests in the land.
They claim their rights arise from long-standing occupation, customary or community tenure, possession and beneficial use of the land.
The residents maintain that the disputed property is community land under the stewardship of the Lamu County Government and that their families have occupied it peacefully for generations.
They say some of the property at risk cannot simply be replaced through monetary compensation.
“Some of the affected property cannot readily be replaced by monetary compensation, particularly ancestral and family homes, graves, trees, long-standing occupation sites and community structures,” they state in the court documents.
The residents allege that government officers and agents linked to LAPSSET entered the disputed land on August 7, 2024, using heavy machinery and bulldozers.
They claim crops, trees and other property were destroyed without prior notice, consultation or compensation.
According to the residents, local administrators later told them that the land had previously been acquired by the government for the LAPSSET project and subsequently allocated to the Ministry of Defence for infrastructure works around Manda Bay.
The works, they allege, included roads and expansion of facilities around the Kenya Navy Base at Manda Bay, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.
Some families claim they were forced to move into rented accommodation to make way for the developments.
Dangote project enters dispute
The land dispute has intensified with preparations for the proposed Dangote refinery.
The residents claim soil testing and other preparatory activities linked to the project began in July 2026.
They allege that local administrators subsequently informed them that the Dangote project would proceed alongside existing LAPSSET and Manda Bay infrastructure developments.
The plaintiffs further allege that on September 10, 2026, police officers, chiefs, and other government agents cleared one of the disputed parcels.
They claim they were told the site would be used for the refinery’s groundbreaking ceremony.
The residents say they later learnt, around September 20, that the government had begun a compulsory acquisition process involving land in Lamu.
They allege that the process could benefit absentee landowners whose titles they claim were unlawfully or fraudulently obtained while leaving out residents who have occupied and used the land for generations.
Residents demand compensation
The plaintiffs have invoked Article 40(4) of the Constitution, which protects the interests of people who hold interests in land that is compulsorily acquired, as well as provisions of the Land Act governing compulsory acquisition.
They argue that people physically occupying and using the land should be identified as persons with compensable interests, even where those interests are not recorded in the land register.
The residents accuse the authorities of failing to follow the statutory process for compulsory acquisition.
Among the alleged failures are failure to issue the required notices, conduct surveys and valuations, identify all persons with interests in the land, conduct statutory inquiries and provide compensation before taking possession.
They also accuse the authorities of failing to adequately consult affected residents or provide meaningful opportunities for public participation.
The residents claim crops, trees and other property have already been destroyed without valuation or compensation.
They argue that government agencies cannot lawfully take possession of land, displace occupants or destroy their property before completing the compulsory acquisition process.
Constitutional and environmental claims
The residents have also raised constitutional and environmental concerns over the proposed developments.
They allege violations of the constitutional 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 further allege that the defendants failed to comply with requirements under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act and applicable environmental assessment procedures.
The plaintiffs have 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.
They say the failure to document those interests has exposed them to possible displacement without adequate compensation.
The residents are seeking the court’s intervention before further construction and excavation takes place, warning that continued works could permanently alter the disputed land and make it harder to resolve the ownership and compensation dispute.
