Sasenyi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd

On August 24, 2021, Sasenyi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited filed a case against Rukinga Ranching Company in the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa. At issue was the parcel of land known as L.R. No. 12263/2 (the “Property”), measuring approximately 5,000 acres situated within Taita Taveta County. The Property was part of a bigger parcel owned by Defendant. According to Plaintiff, however, pursuant to a sale agreement dated April 8, 1998, the Property’s leasehold interest was sold to Plaintiff with the Property’s freehold tenure certified upon full payment. Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff sought to obtain proper title of the Property and compensation in respect of the carbon credit income the Defendant acquired over the years.

The case was transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Voi on April 3, 2025.

Upon review, Judge E. K. Wabwoto, on July 23, 2026, found that Defendant had an “obligation to convey to the Plaintiff a good leasehold title to the [Property].” More importantly, however, the court dismissed the claim for compensation arising from Defendant’s carbon credit project. In doing so, the court developed an elaborate body of principles concerning carbon credits, carbon rights, REDD+, climate governance and remedies—first of a kind in Kenya, according to the court.

The court held that for disputes following carbon credit:
(i) Entitlement follows the land: the right to establish a carbon project and to the credits and income it generates is an incident of lawful ownership of, or lawful rights over, the land or resource generating the reduction, avoidance or sequestration. A claimant to carbon income must therefore trace his claim to a recognized proprietary interest in the project land, or to a contractual or statutory entitlement.
(ii) Contract is the vehicle of the carbon trade: carbon transactions are contractual in nature and are governed by the ordinary principles of the law of contract, subject only to the statutory safeguards enacted below.
(iii) The community entitlements created by the Community Development Agreement must be pursued through the statutory channels, beginning with the dispute resolution mechanisms in the Community Development Agreement itself. The statutory regime does not create a roving equitable entitlement in favour of any neighbour or stranger to a project to share in its proceeds.
(iv) The regime is prospective.
(v) Monetary claims to carbon income are commercial claims subject to the ordinary rules of pleading and proof: a claimant must specifically plead and strictly prove the income said to have been earned and the basis of his share therein. Tools including the National Carbon Registry, verification reports, and issuance records furnish the means of such proof.
(vi) In interpreting and applying this framework, courts should be guided by the constitutional values of sustainable development, intergenerational equity, public participation, and the equitable sharing of accruing benefits under Articles 10, 42, 60, 69, and 70 of the Constitution.