More than 100 residents of Chandavai in Lamu have accused the government of displacing them from their ancestral land to pave the way for major infrastructure projects, including the proposed Dangote East Africa Refinery.
The 133 residents of Mvinjeni claim that expansion of the projects has resulted in the destruction of their homes, crops, trees and other property, leaving them without a resettlement plan and turning them into internally displaced persons.
They filed a case at the Environment and Land Court ahead of tomorrow’s groundbreaking ceremony for the Sh2.2 trillion refinery. “The Plaintiffs seek redress from this honourable court to protect their civil and constitutional rights and secure their livelihoods as any Kenyan citizen should under the Constitution of Kenya,” they say in court papers.
The residents claim they only learnt later that the land—which they had farmed and on which they had lived for generations—had been acquired by the government for the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (Lapsset) Corridor project. They allege that Lapsset later handed over the land to the Ministry of Defence for construction of roads and expansion of military and airport facilities without their knowledge, participation, or consent.
The disputed parcels are said to be near Manda Bay Camp, which hosts the Kenya Navy Base, the US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.
The residents added that their families have developed the land; built homes, mosques and shrines; and buried their loved ones there.
They claim the parcels are community land under the stewardship of Lamu County and they have peacefully occupied it without ownership disputes.
The residents say their troubles began on August 7, 2024, when Kenya Defence Forces officers, local chiefs and other government agents entered their land with bulldozers and heavy machinery. The officials destroyed crops, trees and other property without prior notice, consultation or compensation, they add.
They say they depended on the land for food production and livestock keeping, hence the destruction deprived them of their economic mainstay.
They claim that when they sought answers from the local administration, they were informed that the land had been acquired for the Lapsset project and subsequently allocated to the Defence ministry. They further allege that the land was earmarked for construction of the Lapsset road, infrastructure expansion and emergency services linked to Manda Bay military facilities.
They also claim they were told the expansion included 294,000 square feet of airfield construction, increased fuel storage capacity and accommodation facilities for hundreds of US service members on rotational deployment. They say local administrators asked them not to interfere with construction activities and promised compensation for destroyed crops. Some of them, they claim, were forced to move into rented houses to give way to construction and expansion of the Lapsset road, Kenya Navy Base, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.
“The Plaintiffs aver that they and their ancestors have lived on, cultivated, and developed the suit property for generations and that the land has been passed down through families, with no formal title deeds issued to them,” the residents said.
Some of them, they claim, were forced to move into rented houses to give way to construction and expansion of the Lapsset road, Kenya Navy Base, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.
The residents claim that in May 2026, President William Ruto announced that Dangote Industries would construct a $15 billion to $20 billion oil refinery in Kenya, leveraging the Lapsset Corridor in Lamu.
They allege that in July, Dangote Industries, through its engineering and project management contractors, began excavating deep holes for soil testing and preparing the site for construction of refinery tanks, pipelines, storage facilities and other infrastructure.
The residents argue that although they do not hold formal title deeds, their long occupation, cultivation and development of the land gives them compensable interests under Article 40(4) of the Constitution and the Land Act.
They contend that they qualify as “interested persons” under the compulsory acquisition provisions of the Land Act because they are actual occupants of the land, even where their interests are not reflected in the land register.
The petitioners accuse the government of failing to conduct proper surveys and valuations of their land and property, denying them fair compensation and due process.
They also accuse authorities of failing to consult them or involve them in decisions affecting their property.
The residents want the court to protect their constitutional and property rights, arguing that the compulsory acquisition process has proceeded without recognising their interests or giving them an opportunity to participate.
