The High Court has sided with a Chinese firm in a protracted dispute over a prime parcel of land on a creek off the Indian Ocean in Kilifi, a decision that leaves a Sh40 billion maritime project hanging in the balance.
China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) has received a reprieve with the courts allowing it to continue occupying the 4.844-acre parcel even as fresh questions emerge over true ownership of the contested site within Kilifi Creek Mangrove Area.
CCCC claims it was given the land by the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) to set up a temporary jetty as it builds the Lamu port.
However, South Seas Service Limited wants the Chinese company ejected from the site, noting that it was given the land by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) to construct four fishing vessels valued at Sh40 billion.
CCCC, which is already at the site, moved to court on August 8, 2025, seeking restraining orders against the KFS, arguing that it stood to suffer irreparable loss if evicted from the land.
The High Court in Malindi agreed with the Chinese contractor — the parent company of the firm that constructed Kenya’s standard gauge railway — and granted interim relief, effectively preserving its occupation of the disputed site pending the full hearing of the case.
“The upshot of the foregoing is that the plaintiff’s application dated 8th August 2025 has merit and it is hereby granted in terms of prayers number 3 and 4 thereof,” said the court in a ruling delivered on February 11 by Justice Mwangi Njoroge.
In his ruling, Justice Njoroge seemed to draw from the proverbial wisdom that “a bird in hand is worth 10 in the bush” to justify granting CCCC a temporary injunction, preserving the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The judge outlined three key issues that persuaded him to grant the injunction in favour of the Chinese firm, among them material placed before the court indicating that the disputed site belongs to the Kenya Ports Authority.
The court was informed that the parcel previously formed part of the Old Kilifi Harbour, also referred to as Kilifi port. Justice Njoroge also noted that, unlike South Seas Service, which wanted the land purely for private business interests, CCCC was engaged in at least two public interest projects, including construction of Lamu Port, that had a bearing on the country’s long-term development plan, Vision 2030.
“Thirdly, it is uncontroverted that the plaintiff (CCCC) has invested considerable and valuable infrastructure on the suit premises,” said Justice Njoroge.
“Apparently nothing has been invested by the defendant (South Seas Services) on the suit premises and it will not be a far fetched conclusion for this court to find that the defendant is anxious to get rid of the plaintiff in order to use the established Harbour infrastructure which it has not spent a single coin developing, which would be considerably cut out its start-up overheads,” added the judge.
The ongoing case has brought into sharp focus ownership of public assets, with the court left searching for answers and determining who, between KPA and KFS, owns the land.
A letter from the KPA to the county commissioner dated October 3, 2025 noted that the ports manager approved the CCCC to construct a jetty in the Kilifi Harbour in July 2015 during construction of the Lamu port.
“Further, use of Kilifi Jetty also eases traffic from the Port of Mombasa for non-commercial services,” read the letter from the KPA.
KPA said CCCC is undertaking the construction of Berth 19B, a Sh15.7 billion ($ 122.030 million) project at the port of Mombasa meant to increase the service of container ships of 45,000 Deadweight Tonnage (DWT).
“This is a capital investment, and its importance to the government and the public cannot be gainsaid. The project is time-bound with corresponding obligations to both CCCC and KPA,” reads the judgement.
South Seas says it has partnered with international investors to construct four fishing vessels, a project that it says is part of the blue economy.
“The defendant has engaged other investors to construct 10 fishing trawlers at the site at a great cost, and the project has stalled due to actions of the plaintiff, who has interrupted the defendant’s business.”
