Maasai of Kedong Secure Crucial Legal Ruling Challenging Forced Evictions

By Maria Cristina Mundin, Programme Director, Environment and Sustainable Development, and Chidiebele Ikpeazu, Legal Fellow

William Sipai (left), Bishop Moses Kodonyo (centre)

and two members of the Kedong community Council of Elders

(Photo Credit: William Kooki)

“Since the landmark decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights over the long land dispute struggle, the Indigenous Maasai of Kedong [now] have a reason to smile but [we] still carry a heavy fear on [our] faces for the implementation by [our] own government.”

- William Sipai (Complainant and Kedong community leader)

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has delivered its latest ruling regarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights, in a crucial step towards securing justice for the Maasai people of Kedong, Kenya and representing an important addition to the growing body of African Indigenous rights jurisprudence.

In a decision adopted during its 82^nd Ordinary Session (February – March 2026) and made public in June 2026, the ACHPR ruled that the Kenyan government had violated the community’s rights to property, life, self-determination and development under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as a result of forced evictions, encroachment on their ancestral lands, harassment and arbitrary detention. International Lawyers Project (ILP), alongside Getrude Kibare from Johnson & Partners Advocates LLP, have supported the community with their legal challenge and will continue to assist as they seek implementation of the ruling.

The Maasai of Kedong

The Maasai community of Kitet (Kedong) based their claims on the following facts. They have lived on their ancestral lands, which are situated in Kenya’s Rift Valley between Naivasha and Narok, since time immemorial. At the time of Kenya’s independence from British rule, then President Jomo Kenyatta promised the Maasai that their land would be placed under the control of the tribal authority and that no one could allocate it to another tribe. However, the land was never transferred to the Maasai community. Instead, 75,000 acres of land belonging to the Maasai were assigned by colonial authorities to Kedong Ranch Ltd under a 999-year perpetual lease. Today, Kedong Ranch Ltd remains a private corporation consisting of private ranches and dairy farms, whose stockholders are mostly from the Kenyatta family.

The community alleged that the dispossession from their land following Kenya’s independence resulted in enduring harm, including through violence and the destruction of Maasai livelihoods and means of subsistence. Land allocation and apportionment processes took place without seeking the community’s free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). In 2020, the Kenyan government allocated up to 1,000 acres of Kedong Ranch to make way for the development of Naivasha Industrial Park Special Economic Zone. This development involved foreign investors, without consultation with impacted community members. The community further alleged that large-scale development projects, including geothermal energy exploration, have proceeded on the land without their participation or benefit, in part due to the non-recognition of both their customary land rights and leadership structures.

The project continues to expand with the Kenyan government seeking the full acquisition of the Kedong lands, which sit atop a highly attractive wildlife corridor and potential geothermal energy basin. The expansion has resulted in further displacement of the Maasai from their land. The continued rights violations resulted in the community bringing a complaint before the ACHPR, having failed to secure justice through litigation in Kenya’s domestic courts.

The Complaint before the ACHPR

On 12 July 2021, William Sipai and 13 other representatives of the Keekonyokie clan of the Maasai people of Kitet (Kedong community) filed a complaint before the ACHPR. The community alleged that implementation of large-scale development projects resulted in forced relocation, burning and destruction of homes and shelters, excavation activities that allegedly caused fatalities, harassment and the arrest of human rights defenders associated with the community. They further stated that domestic legal remedies have proven ineffective or inaccessible, leaving them without adequate redress. The complaint drew attention to the vulnerability of Indigenous livelihoods when the Kenyan government fails to legally recognise customary land possession practices.

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights issues its Decision

In its decision in Communication 763/21,* the ACHPR first considered whether the communication was admissible. This included an analysis of the seven admissibility conditions outlined in Article 56 of the African Charter, including the compatibility of the complaint with the African Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and whether domestic remedies had been exhausted. It held that the Communication was admissible because domestic remedies were shown to be insufficient, if not non-existent, after the community demonstrated unsuccessful efforts to exhaust local remedies before all national judicial bodies. It was shown that the members of the Kedong community previously filed two cases, which included challenging ownership of Kedong’s land and violation of the community’s constitutional rights, and for recognition of the community’s land rights and invalidation of land lease agreements with Kedong Ranch Ltd. The cases were all filed before the High Court of Kenya and brought all the way to the Court of Appeals without any success.

The Commission also affirmed the Kedong community fulfils the criteria to be considered as an Indigenous population for the purposes of the African Charter and other human rights instruments. Acknowledging that the Charter does not provide a definition of an Indigenous People or population, the Commission cited (amongst other sources) its ruling in the Endorois case, which identified several factors identifying them as an Indigenous Peoples, including self-identification, exclusion from society and deprivation of rights, and their determination to preserve, develop and pass on their ancestral territories and ethnic identity to future generations. The Commission reached its decision on the Kedong’s identity having considered the evidence before it, including the Maasai of Kedong’s cultural identity, their resistance to the dominant way of life in Kenya, the special attachment to the land they claim, their determination to conserve their lands and the dispossession of their land for more than five decades.

Ultimately, the ACHPR found violations of:

a) right to property (Article 14) due to encroachment on ancestral lands without seeking FPIC

The Kedong community asserted a violation of their right to property given the Kenyan government has deprived them of their right of access to and ownership over their ancestrally owned lands, including the illegal grant of the land to private parties and others and the forcible eviction of community members, without consultation or compensation. After determining the Kedong Maasai’s right of ownership over the claimed land, the ACHPR found a violation of Article 14 of the African Charter, finding that the legitimate representatives of the community were not consulted prior to the allocation of the property by the Respondent State.

b) right to life (Article 4) as a result of blocking access to land and resources, interfering with Maasai pastoralist practices central to their survival

The Kedong community claimed a violation of their right to life as the Kenyan government and its collaborators conducted arbitrary harassment and evictions, and fenced off the boundaries of the Kedong Ranch to restrict the community’s access to their land and resources. The ACHPR determined that Article 4 of the African Charter should be read holistically, since in order to guarantee a dignified life for all, the right to life requires the realisation of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and the rights of peoples, including the right to peace. In this regard, the specific living conditions of the Kedong community, which includes encroachment on their land, blocking of access to land and resources through construction of trenches, creates an obstacle that negatively impacts the Kedong community’s living conditions that is incompatible with the Respondent State’s obligation to protect, promote and realise the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter.

c) right to self-determination (Article 20) by depriving the community access to land to practise pastoralism, cultural and religious traditions

The ACHPR found that depriving the Kedong Maasai of its long-held territory and denying the community control of its organisation, historically fundamental to the community’s pastoral, cultural, and religious tradition, also deprived them of their right to self-determination. In a pioneering declaration, the ACHPR stated that “this right of the Indigenous community to self-organization is intrinsically linked to the ancestral territory of the community where they live.” Hence, the community’s displacement outside of this territory immediately undermined the Indigenous community’s self-determination, which “does not exist without the land of its own.” The ACHPR added that exercise of this right, particularly without undue interference by third parties, including the Kenyan government, is essential for the survival of the community’s traditions for future generations.

d) right to development (Article 22), which must respect the social, identity and cultural aspects of the community, in accordance with their free choice

The Kedong community maintained that the Kenyan government’s massive development programs, including the transformation of the Kedong Ranch into a special economic zone, were made without the community’s involvement or consent. In finding that the Kenyan government violated Article 22 of the African Charter, the ACHPR emphasised that the right to development does not solely include economic aspects, including enjoyment of community property. It should also integrate the social, cultural and identity components, in accordance with the “free choices made by the community itself,” as outlined in Article 20 of the African Charter. Noting that self-determination is not an end itself, the ACHPR also underscored that Articles 20 and 22 should be read in conjunction, so that self-determination ensures that an Indigenous population can “promote and participate in its own development” in line with the community’s free choice.

The ACHPR ordered the Government of Kenya to:

a) cease all activities on the community’s ancestral lands, including refraining from further evictions or harassment;

b) pay monetary compensation to the community for moral and material damages;

c) publish the decision on government or judiciary websites, and in national newspapers; and d) submit a written report to the Commission within 180 days detailing all measures taken to implement the ruling.

Empowering Maasai Communities in Kenya

ILP has supported Kenya’s Maasai communities, including those based in Kedong, Suswa, Naivasha and Narok, for several years. From conducting capacity building on carbon markets to providing legal advice, we have been assisting them in addressing just transition challenges and economic injustice in Kenya. This has included litigation support for the Kedong community in their quest to seek justice.

The ACHPR’s latest ruling gives the community hope after years of enduring displacement and violation of their rights. The expectation now is that the Kenyan government will take meaningful steps to implement the ruling, a process that will require both political commitment and genuine partnership between the State and the community. At ILP, we will continue to assist the Kedong community as they consider the impact of the ruling and seek its implementation.

*Decision soon to be available on African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights website.

International Lawyers Project provides pro bono legal support to more than 100 civil society organisations, communities and individuals each year. Through our Environment and Sustainable Development programme, ILP works with our partners to protect community land rights and biodiversity, combat environmental crime and corruption, provide guidance on the implementation of fiscal tools for sustainable development, and ensure a just transition.

If you need assistance or advice in this area, please contact us at contact@internationallawyersproject.org to discuss how we can help.