logo
Kenya land standoff sends warning to foreign-owned tea estates

Kenya land standoff sends warning to foreign-owned tea estates

Reuters17-04-2025

NANDI HILLS, Kenya, April 17 (Reuters) - A dispute between a British-owned tea plantation and a local community in western Kenya has come to the boil in what could be a sign of turbulent times ahead for tea producers facing a growing backlash over colonial-era injustices.
On the rolling green hills of the Sitoi estate in Nandi County, more than 100 residents are occupying 350 acres (140 hectares) of land, picking tea and living in huts made of mud and rusty iron sheets while grazing their cattle.
They say the land was gifted to them in 1986 by Eastern Produce Kenya. EPK, which is majority owned by London-listed Camellia Plc (CAME.L), opens new tab, says the gift was for 202 acres (82 hectares), not the 550 acres (222 hectares) that the local Kimasas farmers' cooperative claims.
Kimasas chairman Daniel Biwott said his grandfather lived on the land before it was seized by British colonists around 1905 and that reclaiming the disputed 350 acres would right a historical wrong.
"Nothing has happened all these years," said Biwott, standing among knee-high bushes where he, his father and his grandfather once worked as EPK employees. "This is the time to solve it."
The standoff follows several violent incidents at estates in Kenya, the world's fourth-leading tea producer. In January, a farm belonging to Sri Lankan-owned Browns Plantations was attacked and more than 100 eucalyptus trees uprooted, according to the Kenya Tea Growers Association (KTGA).
The industry group said in a statement that "criminal gangs who appear to enjoy political cover" were behind the "Zimbabwe-like illegal land invasion" of Sitoi, referring to seizures of white-owned farms in the early 2000s.
It said EPK was losing over $200,000 per month and the incidents threaten an industry that accounts for nearly a quarter of Kenya's export revenues and supports 5 million livelihoods.
Several people working on land issues said the attacks reflect broader frustration with a failure to remedy colonial land grabs.
"I have tried hard to use the legal system," said Joel Kimutai Bosek, a lawyer who has brought litigation against tea companies and the UK government on behalf of local communities without success. "I think the new or coming generation will be more aggressive."
FEW REMEDIES
During the colonial era from 1895-1963, British authorities seized vast tracts of land, much of which became tea plantations, according to a 2021 U.N. report.
Awareness of historical injustices has grown since 2010, when Kenya established the National Land Commission (NLC) to address the issue, said Samuel Tororei, who was a commissioner until 2019.
But Tororei said the commission's effectiveness was undermined by its limited mandate and an "unholy marriage" between tea companies and political elites.
Under Kenya's 2010 constitution, tea companies' previous 999-year leases were reduced to 99 years but activists complain the government has not used its ownership of the land to extract meaningful concessions in land or money for local communities.
"The underlying cause of tension is that you have overseas owners of large-scale plantations which are based on land that was taken from the community," said Guy Chambers, managing director from 2015-2022 of Britain's James Finlay, which had tea estates in Kenya until 2023.
Kenyan government spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment. The companies say they comply with Kenyan law and accuse some politicians of exploiting historical tensions to undermine their land tenures and advance personal business interests.
Other community attempts to reclaim land have yielded little. Legal options are constrained by statutes of limitations and official immunities, the U.N. report said.
The private equity firm Chambers runs and a community group in the tea-growing county of Kericho jointly bid last year for estates belonging to CVC Capital-owned (CVC.AS), opens new tab Lipton in an arrangement that would have fully transferred control to the community within two decades.
Lipton eventually sold to Browns. A spokesperson for Lipton said it chose the best bidder who could help raise standards in the industry. Browns did not respond to a request for comment.
In a 2019 report, the NLC called on the British government to apologise to communities in Kericho and provide reparations.
The British government has not directly responded to that call. Asked for comment, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office said: "We are concerned by the attacks on tea farms in Nandi and are in contact with the Kenyan authorities."
'DANGEROUS PRECEDENT'
EPK first acquired land in Nandi in 1948. It said the current dispute is not over a historical land injustice but rather a gift made on a "willing donor, willing donee basis".
The NLC found in 2019 that all 550 acres belonged to Kimasas. EPK contested that in court, saying Kimasas' evidence was forged.
As litigation proceeded, more than 200 people, including a national lawmaker from the area, overran the disputed plot on August 3, 2023 and began plucking tea. A court issued an injunction the following day, ordering them to leave.
Most did, but many then returned. In January, squatters attacked a company car and employees, EPK said.
The company said police have not enforced the injunction, while the public prosecutor's office told it that any prosecutions risked interfering with the civil case.
"If we allow this kind of situation where the younger generations now start saying they don't have enough and they want more, then it is a dangerous precedent that should be stopped at all costs," said EPK general manager Peter Goin.
The police and prosecutor's office did not respond to requests for comment. Biwott said Kimasas felt justified occupying the land because there was no final ruling against it.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Madeleine McCann suspect to be released soon amid failure
Madeleine McCann suspect to be released soon amid failure

Glasgow Times

time24 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Madeleine McCann suspect to be released soon amid failure

Christian Brueckner, who is in prison for raping a 72-year-old woman in Praia da Luz in 2005, reportedly sent a letter to officers saying questions which would implicate him in the case of the three-year-old British girl, who vanished from the same resort 18 years ago, cannot be answered. In the note, seen and translated by The Sun newspaper, Brueckner reportedly wrote: 'It is the important questions, the decisive questions that can never be answered. 'Was I or my vehicle clearly seen near the crime scene on the night of the crime? 'Is there DNA evidence of me at the crime scene? Are there DNA traces of the injured party in my vehicle? 'Are there other traces/DNA carriers of the injured party in my possession? Photos? 'And, don't forget, is there a body/corpse? All no, no no.' It is not clear when the letter was written. Brueckner spent time in the Praia de Luz area between 2000 and 2017 and had photographs and videos of himself near a reservoir. Recommended reading: It comes as German and Portuguese investigators finished three days of searching a 120-acre stretch of land near Lagos, Portugal, on Thursday as part of attempts to source evidence to implicate Brueckner. In the searches requested by German authorities, crews spent three days scouring scrubland and abandoned structures. Brueckner is due to be released from jail in September if no further charges are brought. In October last year, he was cleared by a German court of unrelated sexual offences, alleged to have taken place in Portugal between 2000 and 2017.

How to get up to £70 compensation from Mastercard, even if you've never paid with one
How to get up to £70 compensation from Mastercard, even if you've never paid with one

Telegraph

time44 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

How to get up to £70 compensation from Mastercard, even if you've never paid with one

Millions of people in the UK could be entitled to claim compensation from Mastercard – even if they have never used one of the payment provider's cards. Following a group legal claim against the company regarding transaction fees, a resulting £200m settlement means millions of people who were making card transactions in the UK during the 1990s and 2000s could be due compensation. Here, Telegraph Money explains who could be eligible for a payment and what you need to do to claim. Why is Mastercard paying compensation? How much compensation could be available? Who is eligible? How to submit a compensation claim Compensation scams – be on your guard Why is Mastercard paying compensation? Mastercard's £200m settlement is the result of a long-running legal case initiated by the former financial ombudsman, Walter Merricks, in 2016 at the Competition Appeals Tribunal in London. Mr Merricks argued that in the years between 1992 and 2008, shoppers were being overcharged as a result of Mastercard's high transaction charges. Mastercard provides the technology that enables shoppers to make fast, secure card payments, and it charges retailers fees to use its services. Mr Merricks said retailers then effectively passed those high charges on to consumers in the form of higher prices in the shops. It's the largest settlement of a group claim in the UK. Nonetheless, it remains substantially less than the £10-£17bn Mr Merricks claimed shoppers were owed. Although the settlement between Mr Merricks and Mastercard was agreed in 2024, it was only approved by the Competition Appeals Tribunal in May. Commenting on the agreement, Mr Merricks said: 'I am very pleased that after nearly nine years of litigation with Mastercard, I have agreed a settlement that I believe will deliver meaningful compensation to class members who choose to come forward to participate in the distribution of the damages. 'Ever since I began my claim, I have aimed to ensure that the new regime for collective redress can be seen to work effectively and to do that, I had to take my case to the Supreme Court.' How much compensation could be available? This will depend on how many people come forward to make a claim, as there is a certain amount being set aside for compensation payments. Of the £200m settlement package, £100m has been ring-fenced for shoppers' compensation payouts. Although it is claimed that as many as 46 million consumers were affected by Mastercard's high charges, MoneySavingExpert has reported that only 5pc of eligible people are expected to claim. If that prediction is accurate, claimants can expect a £45 payout. However, if fewer people submit a claim, you could get as much as £70 (the maximum permitted in the settlement). The remaining £100m will be used to cover legal fees, a return for the litigation funder, and anything left over may fund further consumer payments and, potentially, a contribution to The Access to Justice Foundation. Who is eligible? To be able to claim, you'll need to meet all of the following criteria: You were living in the UK, for at least three consecutive months, between June 20 1997 and June 21 2008. If you live in Scotland, there's a larger window – ranging from May 22 1992 to June 21 2008. You were aged 16 or over during this period. You purchased goods or services in the UK during this time for non-business purposes – although proof of this won't be required. You were still living in the UK on Sept 6 2016 (the date the claim against Mastercard was filed). It doesn't matter whether you have used a Mastercard debit or credit card or not – this is because Mr Merricks argued that the company's high transaction fees hit all shoppers, irrespective of which card payment provider they used. If you were under 16 during those years, you won't be able to claim because it's argued that you would have been less likely to have been spending your own money. How to submit a compensation claim To be in with the chance of a payout worth up to £70, you'll need to submit a claim. The legal services firm, Epiq, is expected to launch an online claims portal at some point over the next few weeks on the Mastercard Consumer Claim website. Eligible consumers will then have a number of months to complete a claim online. The process is not expected to be complicated – claimants will simply have to state that they meet the criteria and provide details including date of birth, home address and bank details (so that the payment can be made electronically). There will also be no expectation for claimants to provide any evidence to support their claim. According to the claims website, payments will be made before the end of 2025. Compensation scams – be on your guard Beware of any communication or social media post that's telling you to claim now – the online claims portal is not yet live, so it's highly likely to be a scam. Fraudsters love to use compensation schemes as a hook for a scam – for example, there have been numerous bogus websites suggesting they can help the so-called Waspi women claim £2,950 compensation (the amount recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman), despite the Government ruling out any such payments to date.

Man fined £1,000 for putting bins out one day early
Man fined £1,000 for putting bins out one day early

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Man fined £1,000 for putting bins out one day early

A Labour council has been accused of acting like the 'Stasi' after fining a resident £1,000 for putting his bins out a few hours early. Hammersmith and Fulham Council claimed Clyde Strachan had been fly-tipping when he placed rubbish sacks and a food recycling bin outside his home at noon the day before the refuse collection. Now the west London council's 'law enforcement team' - its 'eyes and ears' - has been criticised as 'overzealous' after it refused to give an official warning despite the 37-year-old resident saying he put them out early because he was going away. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, rounded on the local authority. 'Instead of cracking down on genuine anti-social behaviour, the state tries to reassert itself by punishing well-meaning people for tiny infringements. It's the easy thing to do but it's counter-productive and unfair,' he told The Telegraph. 'This huge fine for putting the bins out a few hours early veers into Stasi-like control of people's lives. This man was clearly doing the right thing in the circumstances.' Within two hours of The Telegraph contacting the council, the fine was withdrawn and town hall bosses issued a statement saying Mr Strachan, a lead engineer at a technology company, was 'not a persistent fly-tipper'. The local authority insists that the 'number one priority' for the 72 officers in its enforcement team is keeping 'residents and visitors safe'. However, they issued more than 2,200 fines in 2024. In May, Mr Strachan was leaving his West Kensington home for a few days and decided to help refuse collectors by putting his rubbish out shortly before midday. 'I deliberately put them out of the way on the pavement, tucked to one side against the wall so they weren't in anyone's way,' he said. 'It meant I had put them out about six or seven hours before the evening when I would normally take them there.' When he returned from his trip he discovered an 'environmental enforcement notice' demanding he make contact. 'I spoke on the phone to one of the council officers and said I was willing to receive a warning but felt a £1,000 fine was excessive. 'I said I had put the bins out early as I was not available the next day. It was an honest mistake. I didn't feel as though I needed to grovel, but it felt like that was what he was after.' A week later a £1,000 fixed penalty notice (FPN), with an early £500 option, arrived stating: 'There was one large box, six bags of waste, and one food bin deposited on the pavement and left. It isn't collection day so it shouldn't be there.' The notice said: 'There is no formal right to appeal, however the council will accept representations from you within seven days…' 'It was excessive, completely shocking and quite unbelievably unfair. It feels like an abuse of their powers', Mr Strachan said, adding that he often picks up litter on the street or cleans up if a fox has ransacked bins. Challenging the penalty Mr Strachan challenged the penalty, claiming the 'extreme fine' was not appropriate for a 'minor infringements', adding it was tantamount to 'bullying and coercion.' William Yarwood, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said the huge fine for such a minor transgression was 'completely disproportionate'. 'This was a clear case of an honest mistake, not fly-tipping - yet overzealous enforcement officers have treated it like a serious offence. Residents expect fair treatment, not to be targeted for trying to do the right thing. 'Councils should focus on real issues, not hammering taxpayers with excessive fines for trivial matters.' Councillor Jose Alfonso, leader of the Tories at the council, said enforcement officers should be restricted to 'working with the police to keep our streets safe - not trying to catch residents out on technicalities'. He said the 'contemptuous and high-handed approach' was 'the hallmark' of the Labour council. 'We thought we were getting a law enforcement team, but it appears we've ended up with a council revenue collection team.' A council spokesman said: 'Mr Strachan asked for a review of the FPN on May 28 when he let us know that the reason he put the rubbish out early was that he had been going on holiday the following day.' The following day, they froze the fine pending a review. 'We have since cancelled the FPN as we agree that Mr Strachan made an honest mistake and is not a persistent fly-tipper' he added, claiming officers respond to 'numerous complaints from local neighbours about fly-tipping and waste on pavements in this neighbourhood' and it acts 'both firmly and fairly when residents ask us to deal with the ugly scourge of fly-tipping.' Council's 'eyes and ears' The council website says the enforcement team was set up in 2021, serves as its 'eyes and ears' and is 'one of the largest' such forces in Britain. It claims 'uniformed staff patrol the borough day and night, seven days a week,' adding that they issued 2,270 fines in 2024, but 'are not the police'. Council taxpayers foot the team's £2.1 million annual bill. A separate web page explains how bags should be put out 'before 6am on your normal collection day, or after 9pm on the evening before.' It adds: 'Putting your bins out on the wrong day or in the wrong way could result in action against you for dumping rubbish.' However, that page does not mention £1,000 fines for fly-tipping. In 2024, the council announced that it was introducing 'hefty new fines for fly-tipping' to 'act as a deterrent'. Fines were increased from £200 to £1,000, with a pledge that money raised will fund clean-up operations and 'enforcing the new rules'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store