Nairobi — A long-running legal battle over more than 9,000 acres of contested land in Kisumu County has taken a new twist after a lawyer representing Miwani Sugar Company (in Receivership) rejected a proposed government-brokered consent settlement, citing constitutional and legal concerns.
In a letter dated May 6, 2025, and addressed to the Receiver Manager of Miwani Sugar Company, lawyer David Otieno challenged a directive from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development instructing the law firm to execute a consent drafted by the Attorney General.
The directive stems from a Cabinet decision to settle a protracted court case by recognizing Crossley Holdings Limited as the rightful owner of the land in question.
Otieno noted that although the consent purports to settle the matter in favour of Crossley Holdings who acquired the property via a controversial 2007 auction the firm has consistently held the position that the transaction was marred by fraud and illegality.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
"The proposed consent seeks to have us take a position that is completely incongruent with what we have consistently advised, with what is in the pleadings and affidavits filed and with what we maintain is the correct legal position," Otieno stated.
The dispute centers on Land Reference No. 7545/3, an expansive 9,394-acre property.
The government now seeks to establish a Special Economic Zone on 2,000 acres of the land, reportedly ceded by Crossley Holdings as part of the settlement.
However, Otieno maintains that the title held by Crossley is void and incapable of transferring any legal rights.
In the letter, Otieno reminded the Receiver Manager of his legal obligations, cautioning that "failure to protect the property entrusted to your care could result in prosecution and it will be no defence that you were implementing a directive if the directive is unlawful."
He further dismissed the authority of Cabinet decisions in overriding judicial outcomes, asserting that such decisions "do not have the force of law and are not legally binding."
According to Otieno, the appeal process is still active and any attempt to file a consent before proceedings commence would be irregular.
The lawyer also lamented that the Attorney General's office, being part of the executive and the same Cabinet that made the decision, is best suited to carry out the government's intention without involving his firm especially given the stark legal contradictions involved.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The stalemate is the latest in a decades-old saga that has gripped the sugar sector and could have far-reaching implications for public land policy, economic planning, and the sanctity of judicial decisions in Kenya.
