Connect with us

News & Analysis

Regulating Grant of Natural Resources Concessions to Corporate Entities



By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya), Winner of Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021, ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and CIArb (Kenya) Lifetime Achievement Award 2021*

The Natural Resources (Classes of Transaction Subject to Ratification by Parliament) Act, 2016 was enacted in 2016 to give effect to Article 71 of the Constitution of Kenya and for connected purposes. Article 71 of the Constitution provides that a transaction is subject to ratification by Parliament if it—involves the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person, including the national government, to another person for the exploitation of any natural resource of Kenya; and is entered into on or after the effective date. This Act was thus enacted in 2016 in line with the constitutional requirement that Parliament should enact legislation providing for the classes of transactions subject to ratification under clause (1). This provision is similar to the one found in Article 268 of the Constitution of Ghana which was hailed as a step forward in safeguarding the country’s resources against arbitrary grant of concessions to foreign companies by the country’s leadership including chiefs especially during the colonial period. This may not be very far from the reality in Kenya especially in such cases as the Lake Magadi soda ash mining concessions and the infamous Maasai community land disinheritance by the colonial masters.

Kenya has also suffered other instances of skewed contracts whose resultant activities have been characterised by past reported and unreported cases of non-disclosure and non-declaration of income by the mining companies in the country. Hence, the Natural Resources (Classes of Transaction Subject to Ratification by Parliament) Act, 2016 was a welcome move by the Parliament of Kenya. This article offers a critical appraisal of the Natural Resources (Classes of Transaction Subject to Ratification by Parliament) Act with a view to proposing some recommendations on how the Act can be used in ensuring that the natural resources are exploited and used in a way that benefits communities and the country at large.

Overview of the Natural Resources (Classes of Transaction Subject to Ratification by Parliament) Act, 2016

This Act applies to any transaction entered into on or after the effective date which, under Article 71 of the Constitution, is subject to ratification by Parliament on account of the fact that the transaction- involves the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person to another person for the exploitation of a natural resource of Kenya; and falls within the class of transactions designated as subject to ratification by section 4 of this Act. The Act also applies to any transaction involving the – national government, county government, state organ and all county government entities; and grant of a right or a concession by a private person in cases in which such transaction is required by this Act to be ratified by Parliament. This clarification is important to reign in on county governments which, in an attempt to diversify their sources of income and possibly power struggles, may enter into exploitation agreements with foreigners or even worse, frustrate any investors with operations in their counties. The County governments must however be involved in the process.

In the case of Mui Coal Basin Local Community & 15 others v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Energy & 17 others [2015] eKLR, the Court affirmed that an issue involving prospecting and concessioning of minerals that potentially could affect hundreds of thousands of people in a county must be done in consultation with the County Government – even if the primary activity is assigned to the National Government in our scheme of devolution. It can therefore be said that the Parliament is to come in later on in the process after the due process as per the Constitution and other statutory requirements has been complied with. Section 4 of the Act provides that the classes of transactions set out in the schedule are subject to ratification by Parliament pursuant to Article 71 of the Constitution. The Act spells out the transactions relating to natural resources, which are subject to the Act.

The Act, however, in section 4(2) exempts some transactions from ratification by Parliament. While this exemption is well meaning, there is potential for abuse or confusion. For instance, where the Act exempts the grant of a concession or right to exploit a natural resource through a permit, licence or other authorization issued in accordance with the requirements of national or county government legislation from such ratification, what measures will be put in place to determine the seriousness of the transaction in question and the ramifications of such exemption? This, coupled with the exemption of the grant of a concession or right by a private person to exploit a natural resource through an agreement or a contract, are both likely to be used for personal gains especially in light of the rampant corruption in the country’s governance structures. Would Parliament be compromised to classify a particular transaction as qualifying under these two exemptions for purposes of bypassing the Act’s provisions? Again, how will grant of a concession or right by a private person to exploit a natural resource through an agreement or a contract be qualified against the constitutional provisions that vest all minerals and mineral oils as defined by law in the government of Kenya? How are the private persons to either benefit from the exploitation or the ones to grant the concession to be determined to prevent abuse? Is it possible for a private person to use the Parliament through insider lobbying to access or get a particular transaction for exploitation of a particular resource? These are some of the questions that may arise in light of the listed exemptions.

A transaction, which under this Act, is subject to ratification by Parliament, shall only be effective once it is ratified, and where Parliament has declined to ratify any transaction under this Act, the transaction shall be null and void. The Act spells out certain relevant considerations in deciding whether or not to ratify an agreement: the applicable Government policy; recommendations of the relevant regulatory agency; comments received from the county government within whose area of jurisdiction the natural resource that is the subject of the transaction is located; adequacy of stakeholder consultation; the extent to which the agreement has struck a fair balance between the interests of the beneficiary and the benefits to the country arising from the agreement; the benefits which the local community is likely to enjoy from the transaction; and whether, in granting the concession or right the applicable law has been complied with. These considerations, if fully upheld may be useful in giving the ratification process some credence. However, this is based on the assumption that Parliament is above reproach as far as following due process and putting into consideration the general public’s interests is concerned.

Notably, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for the transaction that is subject to ratification may, pursuant to Article 35 of the Constitution, grant a request that the agreement or portions of it ought not to be publicly disclosed on account of commercial confidentiality, national security or other public interest considerations. While this may be a useful safeguard for purposes of commercial confidentiality, there is need for Parliament and other stakeholders to ensure that the same is not abused to hide or deny the public access to useful information. Arguably, any such non-disclosure should also be done in line with the mining regulations as envisaged under the Mining Act 2016, as already discussed elsewhere in this paper. It is assumed that these regulations and other relevant statutory requirements are to be complied with before the agreements reach the ratification stage in order to avoid any foul play as far as due process is concerned. These Regulations, among others under different statutes dealing with natural resources exploitation, are meant to ensure that the benefits flowing from such exploitation get to benefit the communities and the economy in general. Notably, there are still complaints from communities about either lack of involvement or lack of direct benefits such as employment benefits. They have been feeling marginalized and sometimes outright ignored as far as benefit sharing is concerned. The Natural Resources (Classes of Transaction Subject to Ratification by Parliament) Act, 2016 was thus meant to include the Parliament in ensuring that natural resources are exploited in a responsible manner that benefits concerned communities and the people of Kenya in general.

*This article is an extract from the Article: Securing Our Destiny through Effective Management, (2020) Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development Volume 4(3), p. 1.  by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021 (Nairobi Legal Awards), ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and ADR Lifetime Achievement Award 2021 (CIArb Kenya). Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert in Kenya. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized among the top 5 leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts in Kenya by the Chambers Global Guide 2022.


Cordaid, “Oil Exploration In Kenya: Success Requires Consultation,” Assessment Of Community Perceptions Of Oil Exploration In Turkana County, Kenya, Report, August, 2019.

Etyang, H., “No oil will leave Turkana without security and jobs, protesters say,” The Star, 27 June, 2018. Available at [Accessed on 11/1/2020].

Kamau, J., “Magadi saga exposes the ugly side of capitalism,” Daily Nation, Sunday April 21 2019. Available at [11/1/2020].

Muigua, K., Securing Our Destiny through Effective Management of the Environment, (2020) Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development Volume 4(3), p. 1.

Sanga, B., “Auditor General reveals how mining companies under-declare tax dues,” 25th Aug 2016. Available at [Accessed on 11/1/2020].

Schilling, J., Locham, R., & Scheffran, J., “A local to global perspective on oil and wind exploitation, resource governance and conflict in Northern Kenya.” Conflict, Security & Development 18, no. 6 (2018): 571-600.

Wouters, J., Ninio, A., Doherty, T., & Cisse’, H. (Eds.), The World Bank Legal Review Volume 6 Improving Delivery in Development: The Role of Voice, Social Contract, and Accountability, The World Bank, 2015, p. 158.

News & Analysis

Former KCB Company Secretary Sues Over Unlawful Dismissal




Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania who has sued the Bank for Unlawful Dismissal

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania has sued the lender seeking reinstatement or be compensated for illegal sacking almost three years ago. Lawyer Kania was the KCB Group company secretary until restructuring of the lender in 2021 that saw some senior executives dropped.

Through the firm of Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu, Kamau wants the court to order KCB Group to unconditionally reinstate him to employment without altering any of the contractual terms until his retirement in December 2025.

In his court documents filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court, the career law banker seeks the court to declare the reorganization of the company structure a nullity and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution. He further wants the court to declare that the position of Group Company Secretary did not at any time cease to exist within the KCB Group structure.

He further urged the Employment Court to declare that the recruitment and appointment of Bonnie Okumu, his former assistant, as the Group Company Secretary, in relation to the contemporaneous termination of his employment, was unprocedural, insufficient and inappropriate to infer a lawful termination of his employment.

“A declaration that the factual and legal circumstances of the Petitioner’s termination of employment were insufficient and inappropriate to infer a redundancy against him, and that any redundancy declared by the KCB Group in relation to him was therefore null, void and of no legal effect and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau says he was subjected to discriminatory practices by the KCB Bank Group in violation of his fundamental right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed in Article 27 of the Constitution and the termination of his employment was unfair, unjustified, illegal, null and void.

Lawyer Kamau further seeks the court to declare that the Non-Compete Clause in the 2016 Contract is unenforceable by the KCB Group as against him and is voidable by him as against the Bank ab initio, byreason of the termination of the Petitioner’s employment having been a violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and of the Employment Act.

He also wants the Employment Court to find that finding that KCB’s group legal representation by Messrs of Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates law firm in respect of his claim for unlawful termination of employment resulted in a clear conflict of interest by reason of the fact that a Founding and Senior Partner at the said firm lawyer Mohammed Nyaoga is also the Chairman of the CBK’s Board of Directors.

“A Declaration that the circumstances of KCB’s legal representation by Messrs. Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates resulted in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to have the employment dispute decided independently and impartially, as guaranteed in Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau is seeking damages against both KCB Group and Central Bank of Kenya jointly and severally for the violation of his constitutional and fundamental right to fair labour practices.

He wants  further wants court to declare that CBK is liable to petitioner on account of its breach of statutory duty to effectively regulate KCB Group to ensure that KCB complied with the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines and all other Laws, Rules, Codes and Standards, and that, as an issuer of securities, it complied with capital markets legislation.

Kamau through his lawyer Nderitu told the court that he was involved in Shareholder engagement in introducing the Group aide-mémoire that significantly improved the management of the Annual General Meetings, including obtaining approval without voting through the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited among others.

He said that during his employment at KCB Bank Kenya and with the KCB Group, he initially worked well with former KCB CEO Joseph Oigara until 2016 when the CEO allegedly started sidelining him by removing the legal function from his reporting line.

He further claims he was transferred from the Group’s offices at Kencom House to its offices Upper Hill under the guise that the Petitioner was merely to support the KCB Group Board.

He adds that at that point his roles were given to Okumu for reasons that were not related to work demands.  He stated that Oigara at one time proposed that he should leave his role in the KCB Group and go and serve as the Company Secretary of the National Bank of Kenya Limited, a subsidiary of the Group, a suggestion which he disagreed with to Oigara’s utter annoyance.

Kamau stated that his work was thenceforth unfairly discredited, leading to his being taken through a disciplinary process whose intended outcome failed miserably, and the Petitioner was vindicated.

“More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the purported creation of a new organizational structure towards the end of 2020 was in fact Oigara’s orchestration targeted to remove certain individuals by requiring them to undergo interviews in the pretext that new roles were created, and amounted to a further violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to fair labour practices under Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” said in his court documents.

He further adds that this sham reorganization demonstrates how the role of the KCB Group Company Secretary purportedly ceased to be and was then very briefly replaced with a new role of the KCB Group General Counsel. The role of KCB Group Company Secretary then ‘resurfaced’ immediately thereafter, in total violation of legal and regulatory requirements.

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Court of Appeal Upholds Eviction of Radcliffes from Karen Land




Adrian Radcliffe, the Expatriate Squatter, Evicted from Karen Property by Innocent Purchaser for Value

The Court of Appeal has stayed the decision of the Environment and Land Court purporting to reinstate Adrian Radcliffe into possession of the 5.7 Acre Karen Land by Kena Properties Ltd after eviction by the lawful owners in February 2022. Adrian Radcliffe who was evicted by Kena Properties Ltd, the innocent purchaser of the Land for value.

Before his eviction, Mr. Radcliffe had been living on the land as a squatter expatriate for 33 years without paying any rent. Since he moved into the property as a tenant, he only paid deposit for the land in August 1989 despite corresponding severally with the owner of the land. His attempt to acquire the land by adverse possession claim filed in 2005 was dismissed by Court in 2011 on the basis that he has engaged with the owner of the land July 1997 and agreed to buy the land which he failed to do. The High Court [Justice Kalpana Rawal as she then was] concluded that:

“His [Mr. Adrian Radcliffe] averments that he did not have any idea of the whereabouts of the Defendant and that he could possibly be not alive, were not only very sad but mala fide in view of the correspondence on record addressed by him to the Defendant’s wife. I would thus find that the averments made by him to the contrary are untrue looking to the facts of this case.”

On 10th March 2022, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe and Family purported to obtain court orders for reinstatement into the land. However, the Court of Appeal issued an interim stay of execution of the said orders. The Court of Appeal has now granted the application of Kena Properties Ltd and stayed the execution of the Environment and Land Court Order pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.

The Court also stayed the proceedings at the Environment and Land Court on the matter during the pendency of the Appeal. In effect, the eviction orders issued by the Chief Magistrate Court for eviction of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe in favour of Kena Properties as the purchaser of the property for value were upheld and the company now enjoys unfettered ownership and possession of the suit property until the conclusion of the Appeal.

The Court of Appeal in granting the orders sought by Kena Properties Ltd concurred with Kena Properties Ltd that as the property owner it had an arguable appeal with a high probability of success which would be rendered nugatory if Adrian Radcliffe a trespasser was to resume his unlawful possession of the suit property, erect structures thereon, recklessly use or abuse the said suit property as he deems fit. In any case, that is bound to fundamentally alter the state of the suit property and render it unusable by Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner.

At the same time, the Appellate Court rubbished the argument of Adrian Radcliffe in opposition to the application for stay that he has been in occupation of the suit property for more than 30 years and that he and his family were unlawfully evicted from the suit property on 4th February, 2022. The Court also rejected Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties Ltd has no valid title to the suit property and held that as the purchaser, the company was entitled to enjoy ownership and possession of their property during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court dismissed claims of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe that Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner acquired title to the suit property illegally and unprocedurally finding to the contrary. Further, it rejected Adrian Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties as the purchaser cannot evict a legal occupier of a property putting paid to the claim that he was a legal occupier at the time of eviction.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe cannot claim to be the legal occupier of the property having attempted to acquire it by adverse possession before the High Court thwarted his fraudulent scheme on 28th February 2011. Mr. Radcliffe did not appeal the 2011 High Court decision meaning it is still the law that he is not the owner of the land nor the legal occupier of the land having attempted to adversely acquire against the interests of the lawful owner who sold it to Kena Properties.

Mr. Adrian Radcliffe is a well-to-do Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH) UNICEF consultant and former UN employee (who has been earning hefty House Allowance). Many have wondered why he has been defaulting in paying rent for 33 years on the prime plot of land in Karen while living large and taking his kids to most expensive schools in Kenya. No question, a local Kenyan could never have gotten away with such selfish impunity.

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Review: Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 1




The Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Volume 9, Issue No. 1, which is edited by and published by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD is out and stays true to the reputation of the journal in providing a platform for scholarly debate on thematic areas in the fields of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development. The current issue published in September 2022 covers diverse topics including Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in Africa; National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya; Protection of Cultural Heritage During War; The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya; Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya; Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation; Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World; Status of Participation of Women in Mediation; Business of Climate Change and Critical Analysis of World Trade Organization’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment.

Dr. Wilfred A. Mutubwa and Eunice Njeri Ng’ang’a in “Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in an Integrating Africa: An Appraisal of the Role of Regional Arbitration Centres” explore the nature of disputes in the realm of oil and gas in Africa taking a look into the recent continental and sub-regional developments in a bid to establish regional integration. Additionally, it tests the limits of intra-African trade and dispute resolution and the imperatives for the African regional courts and arbitration centres. In “National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua discusses the role played by the National Environment Tribunal (NET) in promoting access to justice and enhancing the principles of sustainable development in Kenya. The paper also highlights challenges facing the tribunal and proposes recommendations towards enhancing the effectiveness of the tribunal.

Dr. Kenneth Wyne Mutuma in “Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of War: A Case for History,” argues that cultural heritage is at the heart of human existence and its preservation even in times of war is sacrosanct. It concludes that it is thus critical for states to take positive and tangible steps to ensure environmental conservation and protection during war within the ambit of the existing international legal framework. In “The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya,” Jack Shivugu critically evaluates the role of water in the attainment of sustainable development in Kenya and argues water plays a critical role in the attainment of the sustainable development goals both in Kenya and at the global stage. The paper interrogates some of the water and Sustainable Development concerns in Kenya including water pollution, water scarcity and climate change and suggests practical ways to enhance the role of water in the Sustainable Development agenda.

Dr. Paul Ogendi in “Collective Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya,” reflects on property rights in relation to human biological materials obtained from research participants participating in genomic research. He argues that property rights are crucial in genomic research because they can help avoid exploitation or abuse of such precious material by researchers. In “Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua notes that Wetlands have a vital role in not just delivering ecological services to meet human needs, but also in biodiversity conservation. Wetlands are vital habitat sites for many species and a source of water, both of which contribute to biodiversity protection. The paper examines the role of wetlands in biodiversity conservation and how these wetland resources might be managed to improve biodiversity conservation.

Oseko Louis D. Obure in “Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World,” preponderance of disputes between States or States and Investors created need for a robust, effective, and efficient mechanisms not only for the resolution of these disputes but also their prevention. He notes that developing states lead in being parties to Investor-State Disputes (ISD) particularly as respondents. He proceeds to conceptualize and problematize investor-state disputes resolution in a fast-paced world. Lilian N.S. Kong’ani and Dr. Kariuki Muigua in “Status of Participation of Women in Mediation: A case Study of Development Project Conflict in Olkaria IV, Kenya” review the status of participation of women in mediation to resolve conflicts between KenGen and the community. The paper demonstrates a need for further democratization of the mediation processes to cater for more participation of women to enhance the mediation results and offer more sustainable resolutions.

Felix Otieno Odhiambo and Melinda Lorenda Mueni in “The Business of Climate Change: An Analysis of Carbon Trading in Kenya analyses the business of carbon trading in the context of Kenya’s legal framework. The article examines the legal framework that underpins climate change into the Kenyan legal system and provides an exposition of the concept of carbon trading and its various forms. Michael Okello, in “Critical Analysis of World Trade Organisation’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment: Prospects, Challenges and Emerging Trends in the 21st Century,” highlights the rationale behind MFN treatment and also restates the vision of multilateral trade to achieve equitable and special interventions with respect to trade in goods, services and trade related intellectual property rights in the affected states.

Continue Reading