ADVERT 
ADVERThttps://youtu.be/Sny2O4mVqxU?feature=sharedMining giant insists its West Kenya Gold Project remains on course despite a potentially costly legal hurdle over landowners’ consent, community rights and mining approvals.
Shanta Gold Kenya Limited has moved swiftly to reassure investors and stakeholders that its ambitious West Kenya Gold Project has not been brought to a halt, barely 24 hours after suffering a significant legal setback at the Environment and Land Court in Siaya.
The company’s reassurance came on Friday, October 30, 2026, following a judgment delivered a day earlier that imposed restrictions on prospecting, drilling, excavation and other mining-related activities on privately owned land in Ramula, Munungu and Uranga sub-locations in Siaya County without the express consent of registered landowners.
In a clarification carried by Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC), Shanta Gold’s legal representative, Angeline Oloo, sought to dispel fears that the ruling had effectively terminated the entire mining project.
Oloo explained that the court’s decision restricted activities on private property where the requisite consent had not been secured, rather than imposing a blanket prohibition on the company’s entire exploration programme.
ADVERTThe distinction is significant for investors, particularly given the strategic importance of the West Kenya Gold Project and its potential to transform Kenya’s largely underdeveloped gold mining industry.
The Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs also moved to clarify the position, with Principal Secretary Harry Kimtai insisting that the company’s existing Prospecting Licence No. PL/2019/0222 remains valid and in force.
In a statement issued on October 30, Kimtai said the October 29 judgment had neither cancelled, suspended nor revoked the licence.
“The Court did not issue an order stopping Shanta Gold Kenya Limited’s activities,” the PS stated, explaining that the judgment instead provided guidance on the legal framework and conditions governing certain project activities.
The government’s intervention appeared calculated to prevent the court ruling from being interpreted as the collapse of the investment opportunity or the cancellation of Shanta Gold’s prospecting rights.
However, beneath the reassuring statements lies a substantive legal challenge that could reshape the company’s engagement with landowners and the regulatory authorities before the project advances to full-scale mining.
In its judgment, delivered by Lady Justice Addraya Edda Dena, the Environment and Land Court underscored that possession of a prospecting licence does not automatically confer the right to enter, drill or undertake operations on privately owned land without the express consent of registered proprietors.
The court consequently directed that no mining licence should be issued for application number 0200, relating to the Ramula-Mboma project, until documentary evidence establishes that all affected registered private landowners have given their consent.
It further directed the relevant mining authorities to ensure that additional statutory approvals required under Section 36(2) of the Mining Act, 2016, are obtained before the licensing process proceeds.
Of particular importance was the court’s decision to order a fresh consideration of objections lodged against the proposed mining project, including those submitted following a Kenya Gazette notice published on August 1, 2025.
Any recommendations or approvals made before the objections are properly reconsidered cannot be acted upon.
The judgment also addressed the sensitive question of community displacement, restraining Shanta Gold and the relevant government authorities from undertaking resettlement or relocation of residents outside the procedures prescribed by the Mining Act.
Perhaps the most consequential requirement is the establishment of a framework agreement on benefit-sharing before a mining licence can be issued.
This provision speaks directly to one of the most contentious questions surrounding large-scale extractive investments in rural communities: how much of the wealth generated from local natural resources should remain with the people whose land and environment bear the immediate impact of mining operations?
The court anchored this requirement in Article 69(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 109(1) of the Mining Act, reinforcing the principle that natural resource development must incorporate meaningful benefit-sharing arrangements.
The respondents have six months to report to the court on compliance with its directives. The court also declined to award costs, directing each party to bear its own expenses.
For Shanta Gold, the immediate challenge is therefore not simply defending the validity of its prospecting licence, but demonstrating that the next phase of the project can proceed within the legal, environmental and community obligations established by the court.
The West Kenya Gold Project is a substantial investment proposition. The project has reported mineral resources of approximately 1.72 million ounces of gold, including 722,000 ounces in the indicated category, with a feasibility study completed in 2025.
Its development concept combines open-pit mining at Ramula-Mwibona with underground operations at Isulu-Bushiangala, supported by a proposed processing facility with a capacity of approximately 915,000 tonnes annually.
The project has the potential to elevate Kenya’s profile as a gold-producing destination and generate employment, infrastructure investment, government revenues and business opportunities across western Kenya.
Shanta Gold acquired the West Kenya exploration portfolio from Barrick in 2020. The company is now privately held following its acquisition by ETC Holdings through Saturn Resources in 2024.
Nevertheless, the latest ruling demonstrates that the commercial promise of mineral resources cannot override constitutional property rights, public participation and the statutory obligations governing mining operations.
For communities in Ramula, Munungu and Uranga, the judgment represents an important affirmation that owning a prospecting licence is not equivalent to owning the land beneath which the gold lies.
For investors, the message is more nuanced. The project has not been declared dead, and its prospecting licence remains intact, but the route towards a mining licence has acquired additional legal and regulatory conditions that must be satisfied.
The real test for Shanta Gold will be whether it can convert its considerable geological prospects into a commercially viable mining operation while securing the confidence and cooperation of the communities hosting the resource.
The company may have succeeded in calming immediate fears of a total project shutdown. However, the court has made one thing abundantly clear: the future of the West Kenya Gold Project must be negotiated with the people, not merely pursued through licences.
