A court has barred Murang'a County Government from entering or taking over land occupied by fruit grower Del Monte Kenya Limited, escalating a long-running dispute over whether parts of the vast pineapple estate are public land.
The Environment and Land Court issued the injunction following an application by the company, arguing that it was the registered owner of the multi-billion shilling suit land situated in Ithanga-Kakuzi sub location.
The order stops the county, its officers and agents from “entering, trespassing upon, using, erecting structures, or conducting any activities” on the land (L.R. No. 12157/10) pending full hearing of the case.
At the centre of the dispute is a sharp contest over the existence, location and ownership of two parcels identified as L.R. Nos. 9213/1 and 9213/2.
Murang'a Governor Irung’u Kang’ata.
Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group
Del Monte insists the parcels do not exist near or form part of its leasehold L.R. No. 12157/10, while the county government maintains they are surveyed public land encroached by the company.
The suit property identified as LR.No. 9213/2 measuring 964 acres is subject to a separate legal dispute pitting the Salvation Army church against the county government.
The court noted that the dispute over the existence, location and ownership of the two contested parcels—L.R. Nos. 9213/1 and 9213/2—remains unresolved and is already the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
“I find that the precise location and the acreage of L.R. No. 9213/1 and 2 is still contentious,” the judge said, noting that the Governor Irungu Kang'ata-led county government had not produced title documents to support its claim.
Del Monte told the court it holds a 99-year lease from December 1, 2020 over L.R. No.12157/10, formerly part of L.R. No.12157/1, which it has occupied since 1973 for pineapple farming. The earlier 49-year lease expired in April 2022 before renewal.
The company moved to court in February 2025 after county government officials entered the land for what they described as a survey and later issued a notice demanding it vacates within 14 days over alleged encroachment.
Del Monte argued the notice dated February 13, 2025 was unlawful and failed to meet statutory eviction procedures. It also challenged the existence of the county’s claimed parcel, insisting no such land exists near its lease.
"L.R. No. 9213/1 does not exist and the defendant does not own any land anywhere near the suit land. The defendant’s threatened action, if not stopped by this court would cause irreparable harm to the suit land which harm cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages," pleaded Del Monte's advocates.
A section of Del Monte Plantation in Murang'a County in this picture taken on August 13, 2025.
Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group
The county, through its lands department, countered that the disputed parcels had already been declared public land in an earlier judgment of the same court in 2023.
According to the county, that earlier case—filed by private individuals—identified L.R. Nos. 9213/1 and 9213/2 as public land and rejected attempts to claim the parcels through adverse possession.
Ms Josephine Wanjiru, the County Chief Officer, Lands Department, argued that Del Monte participated in the case and never overturned the findings.
In addition she said that the land's map was tendered in evidence and the company did not object to its production or raise the question of its non-existence.
"Title L.R. 12157/10 generated on September 9, 2022 is fraudulent, illegal, null and void for purporting to incorporate and privatise all public land held by the defendant and known as L.R. 9213/1," she stated.
The county further told the court that a subsequent petition upheld the position that issues touching on the parcels could not be re-litigated.
But Del Monte disputed that account, saying it has already filed an appeal challenging the earlier judgment. It also maintained the earlier case did not conclusively declare the land public, and faulted the county for failing to clearly identify the land parcels on the ground.
An aerial view of pineapples growing at Del Monte Kenya Limited farm. The National Assembly Lands Committee on August 6, 2019 directed that the Ministry of Land conducts a new survey within a month to determine the total acreage of land that the fruit farm occupies in Murang'a County.
Photo credit: File | Nation
The court agreed the matter is not settled. It noted the pending appeal and found that questions surrounding the status of the land cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
“The question of whether the land is private or public is still pending the decision of the Court of Appeal,” it said.
The court also established that Del Monte remains in possession of the disputed land, prompting the county’s eviction notice.
In granting the injunction, the court declined to assess whether the company had established a strong case or would suffer irreparable harm. Instead, it relied on the balance of convenience.
“I find that this balance tilts in favour of the Plaintiff remaining in possession until there is a final determination,” Justice Maxwel Gicheru said.
“To allow the defendant to enter the land and deal with it when this suit is pending will neither be fair nor just.”
The order preserves the status quo and temporarily blocks the county from enforcing its claim over the land. The case is slated for mention on June 10, 2026.
The dispute is the latest chapter in a series of legal battles over Del Monte’s extensive land holdings, which span thousands of acres across Murang’a and Kiambu counties.
The earlier Murang’a case cited by the county involved claims by local residents seeking rights over land they said had been historically occupied or reserved for public use.
The court dismissed those claims but addressed the status of the contested parcels, setting the stage for continuing disputes.
Del Monte’s land, originally leased from the government in the 1970s, has frequently been at the centre of competing claims involving local communities and public authorities.
The current case will now proceed to full hearing, where the court is expected to examine the competing claims to determine ownership.
Until then, the company retains control of the land, while the county is locked out by court order.
