Court orders government to settle 45,000 residents of Eastern Mau

The Environment and Land Court has ordered the government to settle over 45,000 residents of Eastern Mau in the six settlement schemes within Nakuru County.

Justice John Mutungi ruled that the settlers proved that they were legally settled in Nessuit, Marioshoni, Sururu, Likia, Sigotik, and Terit settlement schemes measuring 35,301 hectares.

“The petitioners (residents) have established that they were legally settled in the schemes from 1995 and are rightfully in occupation of the land,” ruled Mutungi.

Nessuit MCA Samuel Tonui on behalf of the locals and through lawyers Kipkoech Ngetich and Renny Langat said they occupied the land following the excision of 35,301 hectares by Katana Ngala, then Minister for Environment, on October 8, 2001, through legal Notice Number 142.

In this case, residents wanted to stop the government from evicting them. They also wanted the government to revisit the intended degazettement of January 30, 2001, Legal Notice No 889 published on February 16, 2001, by the then Minister for Environment Francis Nyenze.

Kipkoech, on behalf of the locals, said the court should revisit Legal Notice No. 142 of 2001 by Katana Ngala, issued in August 2001.

Mutungi ruled that the settlers proved that the government created the six schemes to settle landless Kenyans and those affected by the 1992 tribal clashes.

The judge further said that evidence showed that on January 30, 2001, the government declared its intention to alter the boundary of the Eastern Mau and it issued a 28-day notice.

According to the notice, the 35,301 acres will be excised from the Eastern Mau to form a settlement scheme.

Another notice by Katana Ngala, then Minister for Environment, was issued on October 8, 2021, excising the 35,301 hectares through legal Notice Number 142, Mutungi noted.

“The two notices have never been vacated or overturned and it is clear that those people living within the specified hectares were validly settled,” he ruled.

With the conviction, the court ordered the government to move into the Eastern Mau within 12 months, reestablish the boundaries, and ensure those within it have legal land ownership documents.

Further, Mutungi ordered the government to establish and delineate the boundaries by physically placing beacons.

He directed the government, through the Ministry of Interior and Land and Housing to verify and authenticate allottees of land within settlement schemes and issue titles to those without.

“Such titles issued to the persons settled on the land were valid and should be respected,” he ruled

However, the court ordered those found outside the boundaries and encroaching into the forest land to vacate, failure to which the Kenya Forest Service (KFA) will be at liberty to evict them by the land act.

The court also warned all those with valid title deeds within the settlement scheme to ensure they do not interfere with the riparian reserve or any rivers flowing through their land.

“Landowners within the schemes shall be required to replace the tree cover in their parcels of land to a minimum of 30 percent of the land within the next 60 months,” he directed.

The court ordered the Interior Ministry, KFA, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), and Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) to oversee the implementation of the tree cover.

Mutungi in his verdict noted that the Eastern Mau has been the scene of clashes because of the dispute over settlement.

He said the court was well informed that the landlessness was fostered by the transition from colonial to independent states, where the government was forced to create schemes.

“People with no land included persons who were labourers to the white settlers and those affected when the Shamba System was abolished in the 1980s, rendering them landless,” said Mutungi.

He said that the same government that wanted to evict the settlers, permitted them to live within the land that covers Njoro and Kuresoi sub-counties.

“The government did not dispute that the six settlement schemes existed; it only stressed the fact that there was an encroachment into the forest by settlers,” he said.

As such, Mutungi said that even though the government planned to evict the residents to conserve the forest, it gave no clear plan of how it was going to settle the residents who have surpassed the 45,000 due to recreation.

Mutungi said mass eviction will require massive steps and the court had to be careful to ensure that people without land do not end up in the streets.

“The court must be conscious not to, in the name of protecting the environment, usher in humanitarian issues of people being left in the streets and markets without land,” he ruled.

He, however, took note that persons might have taken advantage of the settlement and encroached into the forest land and maintained they would be evicted.

He limited the land use within the settlement area in a bid to protect the environment and water resources.

The court declined to order compensation for those evicted from the settlement scheme.

Mutungi said since the boundary has not been established, the court could not ascertain whether evictees were removed from the forest land or the settlement scheme.

The court declined to issue a stay of its verdict, despite prayers by the Attorney General. Mutungi directed the AG to file the case before the Nakuru court.

“The claim for damages was not proven and the compensation claim is dismissed,” he ruled.