Krystalline Salt Ltd & 3 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining and Petroleum & another (Civil Appeal E044 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1000 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that salt miners on private leasehold land remain regulated by the Mining Act, but keep their land and extraction rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellants' right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution was violated by the enactment of the Mining Act, and whether their leasehold interests were thereby terminated
- 2.Whether, on account of the enactment of the Mining Act, the appellants are subjected to two contradictory and mutually exclusive regulatory regimes
- 3.Whether edible salt falls outside the ambit of the Mining Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the enactment of the Mining Act violated the appellants' Article 40 property rights
No violation: the Act regulates the appellants' activities but does not extinguish their leasehold rights or take away their right to extract salt, so the question of compensation does not arise
The court distinguished land rights, held under the grants under the Registration of Titles Act, from mineral rights, which vest in the national government in trust for the people under Article 62 and Section 6 of the Mining Act. Because the leases subsist and extraction continues, nothing was deprived within the meaning of Article 40(3). Consistently, the ELC's finding that the Act 'does not extinguish the rights' was endorsed.
Whether edible sea salt falls outside the Mining Act
Edible salt is within the Act: it is listed in the First Schedule and the definition of 'mineral' in Section 4 captures it irrespective of use
Section 4 defines 'mineral' broadly to include minerals specified in the First Schedule. Salt appears as item 42 under 'Construction and Industrial Minerals'. The court held that the labels 'Construction and Industrial' describe possible uses, not a limiting category, and the Act draws no distinction between edible and industrial salt.
Whether the appellants are subjected to two contradictory and mutually exclusive regulatory regimes
No: the Mining Act regime simply took over the royalty function previously exercised by the Commissioner of Lands; double payment of royalties would be unconscionable and is not permitted
The court agreed with the ELC that the appellants previously paid royalties under the old regime to the Commissioner of Lands and will now pay within the Mining Act regulations. There is no simultaneous double regulation of the right to harvest salt; the change is only in the regulatory framework under which royalties are collected.
Legal principles established
#- Regulation of mining activities over private land under the Mining Act does not extinguish the landholder's proprietary interest in the land; a distinction exists between rights over land and rights over minerals
- All salt, including edible sea salt, falls within the ambit of the Mining Act; the 'Construction and Industrial Minerals' classification in the First Schedule refers to possible use and does not exclude minerals put to other uses
- A mineral right-holder may not be made to pay royalties twice over under both the old land-law regime and the Mining Act; the new regime simply takes over royalty collection
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- 2.Orders accordingly (the judgment of the ELC, including the quashing of the letters dated 12th May 2021, stands undisturbed)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Constitutional Petition dated 12th July 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules (first appellate jurisdiction to re-appraise the material before the ELC)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment of the ELC and allowing the appeal
The appeal was found devoid of merit: the Mining Act does not extinguish the appellants' leasehold rights; salt, including edible salt, falls within the First Schedule; and no double regulation arises
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
All in all, the appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents.
A clear distinction therefore exists between the rights over land, over which the appellants are entitled by dint of the grants under RTA, and rights over minerals.
Despite the enactment of the Mining Act, the appellants still have the right to extract or harvest salt from their respective parcels of land.
That does not remove them from the broad and general category of minerals as defined in Section 4 of the Mining Act.
It would be unconscionable to subject or demand of the appellants to pay royalties in respect of their mining activities twice over to different authorities.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Krystalline Salt Ltd & 3 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining and Petroleum & another (Civil Appeal E044 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1000 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1000/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.