The Court of Appeal has handed Narok County Government a key victory in the protracted battle over a lucrative 4,000-acre parcel inside the Maasai Mara ecosystem, temporarily stripping businessman Livingstone Kunini Ntutu of control over the disputed tourism land and revenues.
The court overturned a March 2025 Environment and Land Court ruling that had affirmed Mr Ntutu’s ownership of the land and granted him rights to collect tourism levies, tariffs, royalties and fees from operators on the property.
The appellate judges ruled that the trial court failed to determine critical constitutional and public land questions raised earlier by the Supreme Court regarding the legality of the land's title deed.
The court consequently returned the case to the Environment and Land Court in Narok for a fresh hearing before a different judge and ordered that control of the land revert to the county government pending determination of the dispute.
“Effective from the date of this judgment, the control of the land in dispute shall revert to the appellant until the hearing and determination of the suit,” said the judges
The court also directed Mr Ntutu to account for and refund monies collected during the pendency of earlier stay orders that had allowed him to continue collecting tourism revenues.
Tourists on game drive watch a herd of elephants at Musiara area of the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The disputed land sits within the wider Maasai Mara National Reserve ecosystem, one of Kenya’s most valuable tourism circuits, generating billions of shillings annually from luxury camps, conservancies and wildlife tourism.
The land, known as Cis-Mara/Talek/155, is being claimed by businessman Ntutu, brother of Narok Governor Patrick Ntutu.
The legal battle has spanned 30 years traversing the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, while reviving longstanding allegations of fraud, forgery and illegal adjudication surrounding the title.
The title has faced sustained scrutiny because the county government insists the land forms part of the Maasai Mara National Reserve and was never lawfully excised from public trust land.
In their judgment, the appellate judges faulted the Environment and Land Court for narrowly focusing on the adjudication process while failing to resolve the constitutional legality of the title as directed by the Supreme Court in 2018.
“At the heart of the dispute is the issue of the constitutionality and legality of the title held by the first respondent (Kunini). The trial judge failed to address it and bypassed it casually,” they said.
The judges said critical issues touching on whether the land was public trust land, whether it was lawfully excised from the Maasai Mara reserve and whether constitutional procedures were followed remain unresolved despite decades of litigation.
“Sadly, the glaring questions in this dispute, namely, whether the land in question is public land held in trust by the appellant or whether it is private property held by the respondent, remain unresolved,” the court ruled.
The court found that the trial judge failed to comply with explicit directions issued by the Supreme Court, which had ordered a substantive determination on the constitutionality and legality of the title.
“A judgment that fails to determine material issues or grave issues raised in the pleadings or as directed by a superior court is considered a failure of justice,” they said.
Lioness drinks from a stream at the Maasai Mara Game Reserve.
Photo credit: George Sayagie | Nation Media Group
The dispute dates back to 1984 when the defunct Narok County Council leased a 20-acre section within the area to Ol Kiombo Limited for tourism operations.
Following the partial degazettement of the Talek area from the Maasai Mara reserve in the 1990s, an adjudication process was conducted, and Mr Ntutu was later registered in October 1997 as the owner of approximately 1,610 hectares, equivalent to 4,000 acres, under title number Cis-Mara/Talek/155.
Mr Ntutu maintains that the adjudication process was lawful and that his registration extinguished any prior rights previously exercised by the county council over the land, including the collection of tourism revenues.
The county government, however, disputes the legality of the title and argues that the land was never properly adjudicated, surveyed or lawfully excised from the Maasai Mara reserve under constitutional and wildlife protection laws.
It further claims the title was tainted by irregularities, including disputed adjudication records and conflicting correspondence regarding the number of parcels created during the adjudication process.
The court noted that allegations touching on forgery, collusion and illegal acquisition of the title remain live issues requiring substantive determination.
The judges observed that questions surrounding whether the land formed part of the Maasai Mara Game Reserve and whether Parliament approved its excision were never conclusively addressed by the trial court.
The court also cited unresolved questions raised previously by the High Court regarding whether the suit land fell outside areas lawfully excised through legal notices issued in the 1990s.
The appellate court set aside all consequential orders issued in March, including directives compelling Narok County to account for and remit tourism revenues collected from the land since 1997.
The fresh hearing at the Environment and Land Court will now determine ownership and control of one of the most contested tourism-linked land parcels in the Maasai Mara.
