Court orders status quo on Manda Magogoni and as residents challenge takeover

Dzuya Walter
By Dzuya Walter September 28, 2026 07:18 (EAT)
Add as a Preferred Source on Google
Court orders status quo on Manda Magogoni and as residents challenge takeover
Vocalize Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Vocalize

A court in Lamu has ordered that the status quo be maintained on a disputed parcel of land in the Hindi/Manda Magogoni area, as more than 130 Chandavai residents challenge what they describe as an unlawful takeover of their ancestral land. The court declined to certify the application as urgent but directed that it be served on the respondents, who have 14 days to file their responses.

Justice Onyango further directed that the application be heard inter partes on October 14, 2026.

In the interim, the status quo on LR No. 13061 within the Hindi/Manda Magogoni area of Lamu County is to be maintained until that date. The order comes against the backdrop of a dispute involving 133 Chandavai residents, who have moved to court seeking protection of land they say their families have occupied, cultivated and developed for generations. 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, the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor Development Authority, the Lamu County Government and Dangote Industries, alongside two companies described as contractors. In their court papers, the residents claim they hold identifiable portions of land comprised in or forming part of LR No. 13061, which they have historically used for farming and livestock keeping. They say their families have also built homes, mosques and shrines on the land, and that some relatives are buried there. Although they do not hold formal title deeds, the residents argue that their longstanding occupation, possession, customary or community tenure and beneficial use give rise to interests that should be recognised and protected. They allege that heavy machinery and bulldozers entered the land on August 7, 2024, destroying crops, trees and other property.

According to the residents, local administrators later told them the works were linked to government agencies and LAPSSET, and that the land had previously been acquired for the LAPSSET project before being allocated to the Ministry of Defence for infrastructure developments around Manda Bay. The residents say those developments included roads and the expansion of facilities around the Kenya Navy Base at Manda Bay, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield. They further allege that some residents were told not to interfere with the works and were promised compensation for crops and other losses, while some families were forced into rented accommodation to make way for the projects. The dispute has since widened to include proposed industrial development in the area. The residents claim that soil testing and other preparatory activities linked to a proposed Dangote refinery began in July 2026. They further allege that on September 10, 2026, police officers, chiefs and other government agents cleared one of the disputed areas, telling residents it would be used for a groundbreaking ceremony. The residents say they were subsequently informed that the government had begun a compulsory acquisition process involving land in Lamu. They contend the process risks compensating registered or absentee landowners while leaving out those who have actually occupied and used the land for generations. They have asked the court to protect their interests, arguing that the absence of registered title deeds does not, on its own, extinguish interests in land or property that may attract compensation. They are relying on Article 40(4) of the Constitution and provisions of the Land Act governing compulsory acquisition. The residents allege that the statutory process was not properly followed, including requirements on notices, identification of persons interested in the land, valuation, inquiries and compensation.

They also claim they were not adequately consulted and that crops, trees and other property were destroyed without prior valuation or compensation. The plaintiffs have further raised constitutional and environmental issues, citing alleged violations of the right to property, fair administrative action and access to information. They also contend that environmental requirements applicable to the proposed developments were not met. The substantive application will come up for inter partes hearing on October 14, 2026, when the parties will present their respective positions.

Join the Discussion

Share your perspective with the Citizen Digital community.

Moderation applies

Sign In to Publish

No comments yet

This discussion is waiting for your voice. Be the first to share your thoughts!