A Kenyan court has ordered parties involved in a land dispute concerning the proposed $16 billion Dangote refinery in Lamu County to maintain the status quo on the disputed property, days before the planned groundbreaking ceremony for the project.
The order was issued by Justice Jane Onyango of the Malindi Environment and Land Court following a suit filed by 133 residents of Chandavai, who claim that their families have occupied, cultivated and developed parts of the land for generations.
The court directed that the existing situation on the disputed parcel, identified as LR No. 13061 in the Hindi/Manda Magogoni area, be maintained until the matter is heard between the parties on 14 October, 2026.
The residents had sought orders stopping the planned groundbreaking and further development of the refinery.
However, the court did not grant an order expressly cancelling or stopping the September 30 groundbreaking at this stage.
The ruling therefore represents a legal pause over activities on the disputed land rather than a final decision on the refinery project itself.
Dangote Group said on Tuesday that the court order would not prevent the official groundbreaking ceremony from going ahead, although it could affect some activities at the site.
According to court filings reported by Kenyan media, the residents say they have used the land for farming and livestock rearing and have built houses, mosques and shrines there.
They also say some of their relatives are buried on the property.
They allege that government officials and agents of the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor entered parts of the land with heavy machinery in August 2024, destroying crops, trees and other property.
The residents further claim that they were subsequently informed that the land had been acquired for infrastructure projects linked to LAPSSET and the expansion of facilities around Manda Bay, including roads, the Kenya Navy Base, and US Camp Simba.
They argue that although many of them do not possess formal title deeds, their longstanding occupation and use of the land give them interests that should be recognised for purposes of compensation and due process.
The petitioners accuse authorities of failing to adequately consult them, conduct proper valuation and provide compensation or resettlement before development activities began.
They also allege that environmental and public-participation requirements were not properly followed.
The proposed refinery is one of the largest planned energy investments in East Africa.
The facility is expected to have a refining capacity of 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day, which would make it one of Africa’s largest refineries and potentially the largest refinery in East and Central Africa once completed.
The project is estimated by Kenyan authorities and reports to be worth about $16 billion to $17 billion, with some Kenyan reports putting the investment at roughly Sh2.2 trillion.
It forms part of Kenya’s broader plan to develop Lamu as an energy and logistics hub under the LAPSSET corridor.
President William Ruto has strongly backed the project.
Ruto recently visited Dangote’s refinery in Lagos and expressed support for the proposed Kenyan investment, while Kenyan authorities have been preparing for the September 30 groundbreaking ceremony.
The refinery’s development comes with broader questions about how the facility would obtain crude oil.
Reuters reported earlier this month that the proposed refinery faces challenges including securing sufficient crude supplies.
Kenya currently does not have a domestic refining industry capable of supplying such a large facility, meaning the project would have to rely on crude from Kenya and potentially other African producers.
Environmental concerns have also surrounded the proposal, with conservation groups and other stakeholders raising questions about the potential impact of a major petroleum facility on Lamu’s coastal ecosystem and communities.
The respondents, including government agencies and Dangote Industries, have been given an opportunity to respond before the October 14 inter partes hearing.
Until then, the court’s status quo order remains in force concerning the disputed parcel.
