The High Court has allowed several sugarcane farmers and stakeholders to join a constitutional petition challenging the zoning of sugar-growing areas under the Sugar Act, 2024, paving the way for a wider legal battle over the future of sugar farming in Bungoma County.
The applicants were admitted as interested parties in a case filed by Bumula farmer Silverious Simon Simiyu, who claims that more than 9,000 farmers have been unfairly affected by the reclassification of Bumula Sub-County from the Lower Western Sugarcane Catchment Area to the Upper Western Sugarcane Catchment Area.
Mr Simiyu argues that the rezoning was introduced through the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024, without adequate public participation and threatens the livelihoods of farmers who have long-standing supply contracts with Mumias Sugar Company.
The petitioner is seeking conservatory orders to stop the June 25 elections for sugarcane farmers’ representatives to the Kenya Sugar Board until the constitutional petition is determined. He contends that many Bumula farmers risk being excluded from the elections because eligibility rules require growers to hold active contracts with millers operating within their designated zones and to have supplied cane to those millers within the last 24 months.
Although Bumula was moved to the Upper Western zone, many farmers still have contracts with Mumias Sugar Company, which falls under the Lower Western zone, potentially leaving them unable to vote or contest in either region.
The entrance to Mumias Sugar Company.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The petition alleges violations of constitutional rights, including the right to public participation, fair administrative action, equality and protection of property rights.
However, the case has attracted opposition from other farmers who support the current zoning framework. One of the interested parties, Harrison Tanga Webbo, a contracted farmer with West Kenya Sugar Company, argued that the Kenya Sugar Board merely implements laws passed by Parliament and that the petition is defective because Parliament was not joined in the suit.
Other applicants maintained that the Sugar Act, 2024, was enacted after extensive public participation and noted that the zoning framework has been in operation for about 18 months.
They argued that suspending the elections would prejudice thousands of farmers across seven counties.
In a ruling delivered on June 15, 2026, the court found that the applicants had demonstrated substantial interests that could be affected by the outcome of the case and allowed them to participate in the proceedings.
“The interested parties have sworn affidavits indicative of facts that they have substantial interest in the matter, and in such a situation if not admitted, they will suffer substantial loss,” the judge said.
