NANDI COUNTY, KENYA – April 17, 2025
A long-simmering land dispute in Nandi County has boiled over, as more than 100 local farmers from the Kimasas cooperative have occupied 350 acres of tea plantation land owned by Eastern Produce Kenya (EPK), a subsidiary of the UK-based Camellia Plc. The farmers claim the land was gifted to them nearly four decades ago but was never formally handed over.
The disputed parcel forms part of the vast tea-growing estates managed by EPK in Kenya’s Rift Valley. According to the Kimasas community, a total of 350 acres were promised to them in 1986 by previous estate managers. However, EPK insists that only 202 acres were officially allocated to the local group—an assertion now at the heart of a volatile and highly symbolic standoff.
“We are simply reclaiming what was promised to us,” said one of the protest leaders, who requested anonymity. “This land was meant to be our livelihood, and we’ve waited patiently for decades. Now, we are taking peaceful steps to get what’s rightfully ours.”
In response, EPK has maintained that it remains open to dialogue but considers the occupation illegal. The company has not yet pursued legal eviction but is said to be engaging both local and national authorities in efforts to defuse tensions.
This dispute goes beyond legal boundaries—it reflects the deeper historical injustices linked to colonial-era land ownership. During British rule, vast tracts of fertile land were allocated to foreign companies, often at the expense of indigenous communities. Even after Kenya’s independence in 1963, many of these arrangements remained largely untouched, fueling grievances that continue to fester today.
Legal analysts suggest that this case could set a significant precedent, especially as local communities across the country increasingly press for the return or redistribution of land they believe was unjustly taken.
“The Nandi case could become a turning point,” said a Nairobi-based land rights expert. “If the courts or government step in to recognize historic promises—even if informal—it might open the floodgates for similar claims nationwide.”
As tensions simmer, all eyes are now on how the government and judiciary will respond to this growing flashpoint—one that pits historical memory against legal documentation, and community rights against corporate interests.
