NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 29 – The High Court has revoked the title of the 76,602-acre Kamuthe Wildlife Conservancy in Garissa, ruling that its establishment violated the Constitution and the Community Land Act for lack of public participation and environmental approvals.
Justice Julius Mutungi, held that while the registration of Kamuthe as a community was valid, the conversion of part of its land into a wildlife conservancy was irregular and unlawful.
The petition was filed by residents Idris Falir Kalba and Mohamed Maalim Ali, who told the court that the conservancy was imposed without consultation and had denied pastoralist communities grazing rights.
They accused the conservancy of using armed guards to restrict access and said they feared eviction from ancestral land.
In response, the Ministry of Lands, the Attorney General, Garissa County Government, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), and conservancy officials argued that due process had been followed and that the conservancy covered only a portion of the 149,000-acre community land.
They maintained that members had been involved and that the land still allowed open use by the community.
However, the court found that approvals were issued prematurely, before the community had been formally registered, and without compliance with Section 19 of the Community Land Act, which requires both an environmental impact assessment and ratification by community members. No evidence of NEMA approval was presented.
“The establishment of Kamuthe Wildlife Conservancy was undertaken without adequate public participation and without the approval of the registered community members,” Justice Mutungi ruled.
“Any licence issued in its favour is unconstitutional and void.”
The court proceeded to cancel the conservancy’s licence issued by KWS, revoke any interests noted on title No. Garissa/Kamuthe/2, and declare the conservancy illegal until established in line with the law.
The judgment also detailed that community land cannot be converted for new uses without the express involvement of its members, warning that failure to respect these rights undermines both constitutional values and environmental governance.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
