A court has blocked quarry operators from accessing or carrying out mining operations on a disputed parcel of land in Gatanga, Murang’a County, claimed by fruit processor Del Monte Kenya Limited.
The Environment and Land Court issued temporary orders restraining the operators from entering, quarrying or placing machinery on the land pending determination of a case filed by Del Monte.
The contested parcel lies in Ithanga-Kakuzi sub-location in Gatanga Constituency, along the riparian corridor of the Chania River.
Del Monte maintains that quarrying is taking place on its land, while the operators insist they are working on separate riparian areas.
The court also directed the quarry operators to vacate the land and remove all equipment, and ordered police at Ngati Police Station to enforce compliance and maintain order.
The dispute pits Del Monte Kenya Limited, a major fruit grower and processor, against members of the Gatanga Quarry Owners Association and other individuals accused of trespass.
Del Monte, which operates vast agricultural estates and irrigation systems in Murang’a, says it holds a 99-year lease on the land from December 2020 and has occupied it for decades.
The company applied for the temporary orders on February 12, 2026, telling the court that the defendants had “begun extensive quarrying activities,” including road construction, rock mining and preparations for blasting operations on its land.
It warned that the activities were causing “environmental degradation, pollution and silting” of its irrigation infrastructure and threatening a nearby river ecosystem.
"The defendants’ actions of quarrying are causing environmental degradation, pollution, and silting of the plaintiff’s irrigation systems and pose a serious threat to the surrounding ecosystem, including the nearby river through pollution, siltation, and degradation," the company's advocates told the court.
It added that the quarry operators had demonstrated hostility, aggression and violent conduct whenever the company attempted to engage them or assert its proprietary rights over the suit land.
Licence dispute
But the defendants disputed the claims, saying they had approval from the Murang’a County government since 2017 and licences from the national environmental regulator to operate along the Chania River.
They argued their activities were outside Del Monte’s land and within surveyed parcels later amalgamated into a larger title.
They further said a National Assembly committee report led to the amalgamation of five parcels, noting that an earlier court petition filed by Del Monte challenging the process was dismissed in 2025.
Kangema MP Peter Kihungi, named as the fourth defendant, also opposed the suit, saying Del Monte had not demonstrated significant environmental damage, including pollution of air, soil or water.
He denied direct involvement, saying due diligence was not conducted before he was sued. He added that he was not a member of the Gatanga Quarry Owners Association, was not the area MP and had been wrongly joined in the case.
Precaution rule
However, the court cited uncertainty over the legality of the quarrying and questioned the authenticity and scope of the approvals presented.
“The court should not allow quarrying… until there is certainty that the defendants have the requisite approvals,” the court ruled.
It added that it was safer to halt operations immediately rather than risk irreversible environmental harm, invoking the precautionary principle.
"It is better to be safe than sorry when dealing with activities that could damage the environment. Rather than wait to confirm if the alleged letters from the County Government of Murang’a and Nema are genuine or not, the court would rather stop the quarrying now, than risk the degradation of the environment, which might turn out to be irreversible eventually," the court stated.
On claims that a parliamentary committee report justified the activities, the court said the report “did not concern quarrying” and conferred no such authority.
The court added that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the land until ownership and usage rights are conclusively determined.
“I find that the court should stop the quarrying activities until there is certainty on the legality,” the court said.
The case adds to a series of legal battles over the land, including a petition dismissed in 2025 and an ongoing appeal.
