Tour vans entering the world-famous Maasai Mara National Reserve's Sekenani Gate.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an attempt by a community-based organisation to challenge a High Court ruling awarding businessman Livingstone Kunini Ntutu control of a 4,000-acre parcel within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
Mr Kunini is the brother of Narok Governor Patrick Ntutu.
The court termed the Resoluterise CBO’s application for an extension to file its appeal "fundamentally misconceived" and an "abuse of court process," dealing a blow to the group’s efforts to overturn the March 2025 Environment and Land Court (ELC) judgment.
The contested property, Parcel No.CIS-MARA/TALEK/155, sits within the world-famous Maasai Mara ecosystem.
It has been the subject of litigation spanning 25 years across multiple courts, including the Environment and Land Court (ELC), Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The matter has previously also been the subject of criminal investigations, court documents show.
The Land court in Narok ruled in Mr Kunini’s favour on March 6, 2025, allowing him to collect tourism fees from the reserve—a decision that the Narok County Government is separately appealing at the Court of Appeal.
Resoluterise CBO, which claims its members reside and operate campsites on the land, sought to join the appeal despite not being party to the original case.
The group argued it was admitted as an appellant during July 16 proceedings and needed more time to compile voluminous records, including decades-old survey maps.
However, the court declined these claims, ruling that the group lacked authority to join the case.
The court found that the July 16 orders merely extended conservatory measures, such as barring land sales, to Resoluterise’s parallel stay application. The bench did not grant the CBO appellant status.
“It was not, and could not have been, an admission of the applicant as a party to that appeal or authorisation to file a separate appeal,” the court said.
The CBO failed to seek formal joinder under the Court of Appeal rules and provided no membership register linking it to Talek, Narok. Its Nairobi-based registration further undermined its claims.
“The applicant is registered at Starehe Constituency, Nairobi County, and has not produced a register of members to prove any nexus between its membership and the Talek area in Narok County. Even if extension of time is granted, the applicant will still not be properly before Court for failure to initially seek joinder,” Mr Kunini told the court.
His advocates accused Resoluterise of "deliberate falsehoods" for misrepresenting the July 16 orders.
The Narok County Government warned that allowing the CBO’s appeal would derail the scheduled October 28 hearing of its own appeal, calling the move "duplicative and prejudicial".
The county argued that the CBO’s intended appeal lacked any distinct or novel grounds that would justify a separate appeal, as it substantially mirrored issues already raised in the county government’s appeal.
“Moreover, the delay of over five months since the 6th March 2025 judgment, without reasonable explanation or documentary evidence of efforts to obtain proceedings,” said the county.
“As custodian of the Maasai Mara National Reserve, the second respondent (county government) submits it is well positioned and competent to represent and advocate for public interests in the appellate proceedings, rendering the applicant's separate appeal unnecessary and duplicative”.
Tour vans entering the world-famous Maasai Mara National Reserve's Sekenani Gate.
With Resoluterise barred, the county government’s appeal remains the primary challenge to Mr Kunini’s ownership of part of Kenya's most lucrative wildlife tourism circuit.
The Narok County Government’s appeal proceeds as scheduled on October 28, with the court maintaining earlier orders that the businessman may continue collecting fees, but must account for them if the appeal succeeds and no land sales or disruptions to his possession are permitted pending the outcome.
While the county government contends that the land is part of the Maasai Mara Game Reserve, Mr Kunini maintains that he was lawfully allocated the land in 1997 and that the title deed he holds was rightfully issued in his favour.
He pleads that by a notice dated May 6, 1997, the land adjudication officer, Narok, declared the Talek degazetted area as an adjudication section.
A total of 155 parcels of land resulted from the said adjudication exercise, which were ascertained, recorded and registered in the names of their respective owners.
In his case, he was ascertained, recorded and registered as the absolute owner or proprietor of all that parcel of land measuring approximately 1,610 hectares (4,000 acres) known as title no. Cis-Mara/ Talek/155.
He was subsequently registered in October 1997 as the owner of the suit land, and has at all material times held all rights, privileges and appurtenances belonging thereto and free from all other interests and claims.
Further, he pleaded that forming part of the suit land, is a portion of a land known as LR. No. 13325, measuring approximately 20 acres, which was leased by the defunct county council of Narok for a term of 33 years from July 1984.
He maintains that with effect from October 1997, when the suit land was registered in his favour, all interests the defunct county council held in relation to the leased portion, including, levying or collection of revenues, were extinguished.
“Despite the demands, first defendant has unlawfully and without any colour of right or legal justification, continued to purport to exercise such rights or privileges by, among others, demanding and collecting rent, tariffs, royalties, fees and other revenue for the use and occupation by the second defendant (Olkiombo Limited) of the leased portion,” he said.
In rebuttal, the county government says no demarcation or adjudication was carried out in respect of the land.
It admits that whereas the first registration of Mr Kunini as the proprietor of the suit land was effected on October 14, 1997, the mandatory provisions of the Trust of Land Act and the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act were not adhered to since the suit land has never been surveyed, and that it is not identifiable on the ground as required by law.
The county maintains that it holds and deals with the suit land as a matter of right under the provisions of the Constitution and the Trust of Land Act.
“The suit land does not constitute part of Talek area referred to and described in the cessation order published vide legal notice No. 412 of 1992,” says the county.
It contends that no proper invocation or application of the fundamental provisions of the Land Adjudication Act in the alleged manner would have been commenced and carried out in respect of the suit land without the mandatory prior cessation or de-gazettement.
The appeal is scheduled for hearing next week.
