The macadamia nut industry in Kenya, once a hallmark of agricultural success and a beacon of hope for thousands of farmers, processors, and traders, is now caught in a heated legal and economic battle.
At the heart of this conflict are two petitions filed in the High Court, both seeking to address the government’s contentious decisions on harvesting and exporting raw macadamia nuts.
The cases have brought the industry’s struggles into sharp focus, highlighting the tension between short-term policy decisions and long-term sustainability.
The first petition, filed by Erick Mwirigi represented through the law firm of Mbicho Mboroki & Company Advocates, challenges the State's decision to ban the harvesting of macadamia nuts between November and March.
The petition is set for hearing on February 16, 2025, before Justice Lawrence Mugambi, who granted a conservatory order, allowing harvesting to proceed pending the determination of the case.
The second petition was filed by Mr Christopher Mwirigi Njue, a smallholder farmer from Embu County, who challenged the government’s short-term extensions of the export authorisation for raw (in-shell) macadamia nuts.
Mr Njue filed the case through the law firm of Gitonga & Tollo Advocates and is set for a hearing before Justice Bahati Mwamuye on January 27, 2025.
The case was sparked by a ministerial directive issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture on October 22, 2024, banning the harvesting of macadamia nuts from November 2, 2024, to March 2025.
Macadamia farmers and traders protested the decision arguing that the directive was illegal as it was issued without adequate consultation or public participation.
In his petition, Mr Mwirigi argues that the ban unfairly benefits processors by creating artificial market shortages, which lower farm-gate prices and enable processors to monopolise the market.
The farmer contended that mature macadamia nuts in counties like Embu, Meru, Nyeri, and Kirinyaga cannot be left unharvested for months without spoiling, resulting in irreparable losses.
He said the directive was unconstitutional and was issued in violation of proprietary rights under Article 40, the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, and public participation principles.
The Embu farmer argues that the directive disenfranchises farmers by preventing them from accessing fair market prices and forcing them into economic hardship.
It is also his argument that the policy skews market dynamics to favour processors, jeopardising farmers’ livelihoods and the broader macadamia value chain.
He wants the court to quash the ministerial order in its entirety, arguing that it is oppressive, unreasonable, and lacks legal foundation.
Mr Mwirigi is also seeking an injunction against the implementation of the directive and restraining the Cabinet Secretary from interfering with the proprietary rights of macadamia farmers and traders.
On his part, Mr Njue moved to court following a press release issued by CS Agriculture on December 4, 2024 authorising the export of raw macadamia nuts for 30 days, with the authorisation set to expire on January 4, 2025.
He submitted that the decision has created chaos in the industry and undermines Kenya’s commitments to sustainable development and equitable economic growth while favoring exporters at the expense of smallholder farmers and local processors.
He argues that the decision was made without stakeholder consultation or a formal statutory instrument such as a gazette notice.
The petition further contends that the short-term extensions undermine legitimate expectations that the lifting of the export ban would last for a predictable period, allowing for market stability.
According to Mr Njue, the policy threatens the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and local processors, with over 5,000 jobs already lost in 2024 alone.
He said such decisions short-term extensions should be prohibited unless they comply with constitutional imperatives and involve meaningful stakeholder consultation.
While farmers are lamenting, processors, however, paint a starkly different picture.
They argue that lifting the ban on exporting raw nuts undermines Kenya’s local value chain, which has been painstakingly built over the years.
According to the Macnut Association of Kenya, the export of raw nuts deprives local processors of raw materials, forcing many to operate below capacity.
Mr Nicholas Njeru, a director at Jumbo Nuts, noted that over 5,000 jobs were lost in 2024 due to the export policy, with more losses expected if the current trend continues.
“We have invested heavily in building this industry. Exporting raw nuts takes us back to square one, and we risk losing our position as a leader in processed macadamia products,” he said.
In September, High Court judge Lucy Gitari dismissed another case by 60 macadamia farmers, who sought to quash some sections of the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) Act, which prohibits the export of raw macadamia- unless with the authority of the Cabinet Secretary.
The farmers had claimed that the section had made them lose Sh3 billion of expected earnings from the exportation of the nuts.
While dismissing the case, Justice Gitari said it was clear that the sections complained of did not give a blanket prohibition of the exportation of raw macadamia.
The judge said section 43 of the Act, rather provided that the exportation of raw macadamia can be allowed with the permission of the Agriculture CS.
“The Petitioners (farmers) have however not demonstrated that they sought the authority of the Cabinet Secretary and that the same was denied arbitrarily. In the circumstances, it is my view that the Petition is indeed premature,” said the judge.
The farmers argued that macadamia with shell cannot be termed as raw as the nut has two shells, the outer green shell and the brown.
The farmers said upon removal of the outer green shell, the macadamia cannot be termed as raw macadamia.
It was their argument, therefore, that section 43 of AFA, which prohibits the export of raw macadamia- unless with the authority of the CS violated their rights.
The farmers also argued that AFA had no role in licensing the growth of macadamia in Kenya as agriculture was a devolved function.
The farmers submitted that being a fruit, macadamia can be consumed according to individual style, wish, and consumer rights, and any directive that the shell must be was contrary to the consumer rights and their wishes.
They sought a declaration that they are entitled to buy or sell their macadamia to the buyer of their choice locally or internationally with or without shell, provided that the same is not raw macadamia.
In response, the authority said the farmers ought to have exhausted the options available to them in their quest to export raw macadamia by seeking the authority of the Cabinet Secretary.
On the claim that they were discriminated against because of the Act, the authority said has not been substantiated.
AFA said the farmers failed to demonstrate that they depended on the export of processed in shell macadamia nuts and that they have a ready international market which has been blocked by the government.
The ministry argued that there is no blanket prohibition of exporting raw macadamia as the complained section provides that the CS may give authority for the export of raw nuts.
The court heard that none of the farmers had shown that they sought the authority of the Cabinet Secretary and they were denied.
Further, AFA submitted that the contention that macadamia with brown shell is processed macadamia was untenable because the removal of the outer green shell cannot amount to processing.
The ministry added that the Crops Act does not speak of licensing of macadamia farming but speaks of licensing dealers who are engaged in collecting, transporting, storing, buying or selling crops.
A moratorium on export of raw or in-shell macadamia nuts was lifted on November 3, last year for a period of one year.
