Bao Gold Hill Kenya Limited v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6786 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court temporarily restored a mining company's licence and barred officials from interfering with its operations while the main case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner/Applicant established a prima facie case warranting conservatory orders
Yes. The licence appeared on its face to have been signed by a Cabinet Secretary and there was no evidence of revocation or cancellation, and no evidence the Petitioner was heard before its application was rejected.
The court observed the mining licence was signed by the then Cabinet Secretary Hon. John Munyes and that no evidence of revocation or cancellation existed. There was also no evidence the Petitioner was given notice or an opportunity to explain before the MRB recommended rejection. Validity of the licence was a matter for the main trial, but the material disclosed a prima facie case with probabilities of success.
Whether the Petitioner would suffer prejudice absent the orders
Yes, given the imported heavy machinery and the closure of operations.
The court noted the Petitioner imported heavy machinery from China with the facilitation of the Government of Kenya and was now being forced to uproot it, and found a likelihood of prejudice, relying on the definition of prejudice in Black's Law Dictionary as damage or detriment to one's legal rights or claims.
Whether conservatory orders would enhance constitutional values and serve the public interest
Yes - the orders would uphold the rule of law and secure jobs, as over 400 workers were rendered jobless by the closure.
The court found allegations of harassment of employees without fair administrative action would, if true, be remedied by the orders, enhancing constitutional values. The closure had rendered some 400 persons jobless, affecting households and landlords, so the orders were necessary in the public interest and for job security.
Whether the alleged non-payment of Ksh 622,280,800 in ground rent and royalties could be determined at the interlocutory stage
No - it is a contested issue for the main trial.
The Respondents alleged unpaid ground rent and royalties while the Petitioner denied the debt and produced receipts. The court held the Petitioner would have to prove payment and the Respondents prove non-payment at the main trial; the issue could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory orders preserve the status quo and the substratum of a petition pending its hearing and determination.
- Determining a prima facie case requires looking at the case as a whole, weighing pleadings, facts, positions, remedies and the law.
Court orders
#- 1.Conservatory order compelling the 1st Respondent to immediately restore the Petitioner's name and Mining Licence No. ML/2019/0072/1038/3 in the mining cadaster pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.Conservatory order compelling the 2nd Respondent to immediately withdraw the Mining Police Unit from the Petitioner's mining site in Lolgorian, Narok County, and to cease all interference with the Petitioner's lawful mining operations
- 3.Conservatory order restraining the 2nd Respondent from raiding, intimidating, harassing and/or threatening the Petitioner's personal and employees' liberty under the guise of effecting arrest
- 4.Further or other orders and/or directions as the court may deem just
- 5.Liberty to apply
- 6.Conservatory orders to remain in force for a period of 12 months or less, failing prosecution of the main Petition the orders to lapse automatically
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Rules 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bao Gold Hill Kenya Limited v Attorney General & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6786 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition pending before the Environment and Land Court, Narok). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6786/eng@2025-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.