Dominic & 3 others v County Government of Narok & 4 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E004 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5677 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld the Maasai Mara management plans, ruling that public participation was sufficient and dismissing the petition challenging how they were adopted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the petitioners
The petitioners, as residents of Narok County suing on behalf of its people, had standing under Article 22 of the Constitution
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's analysis in Mumo Matemu and Otolo Margaret Kanini, holding that the constitutional landscape has transformed standing, that the petition stated it was brought on behalf of the people of Narok County, and that the bringing of the petition was not shown to be in bad faith. Articles 22 and 258 permit any person to institute proceedings claiming violation of the Constitution.
Whether Section 44 and the Fourth Schedule of the WCMA applied to the management plans
They did not; Maasai Mara is a national reserve, not a national park, and Section 44(3) and the Fourth Schedule concern national parks, marine protected areas, conservancies and sanctuaries
The court examined the definitions of national park and national reserve, noted Maasai Mara is listed in the Eleventh Schedule as a national reserve managed by the county government under Section 35(2), and held that Section 34 (variation of boundaries) and the Fourth Schedule (public consultation under Section 34) were inapplicable. The gazette notices were nonetheless made pursuant to Section 44(3).
Whether public participation was effective and meaningful
Yes; the process began in 2006 and 2020 respectively, included ward-level forums, stakeholder workshops, newspaper notices and committee reports, and the allegations of a dysfunctional email and locked public gallery were unsubstantiated
Applying the Mui Coal Basin principles, the court held public participation must be effective and show intentional inclusivity, not incorporate every individual's views. The plans' appendices and the Joint Committee report of 21st February 2023 evidenced consultation and consideration of views; the petitioners produced no evidence they requested and were denied the plans.
Applicable standards where no specific statutory framework exists for public participation on a national reserve
In the absence of a specific framework, the respondents should at the very least have complied with the Fifth Schedule of the WCMA, which requires a report detailing participation of neighbouring communities
The court found the gazette notices were published under Section 44(3), which does not expressly cover national reserves, and that no legislative framework guided participation for reserves. It held the Fifth Schedule, setting out minimum contents of a management plan including the participation report and anticipated benefits, provided the applicable baseline, which the plans substantially met.
Legal principles established
#- Where a national reserve is concerned and there is no specific legislative framework prescribing the mode of public participation, the agency must at the very least comply with the Fifth Schedule of the WCMA, including a report detailing the participation of neighbouring communities
- The management of a national reserve vests in the relevant county government under Section 35(2) of the WCMA
- Locus standi under the 2010 Constitution is liberal; any person may sue under Articles 22 and 258 on their own behalf, on behalf of others or in the public interest
- The test for adequacy of public participation is one of effectiveness, not compliance with a prescribed litmus test, and public participation is a continuous obligation
Court orders
#- 1.The amended petition dated 6th July, 2023 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution) read with the constitutional petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mutethia t/a Times & Seasons Chemicals v Absa Bank Kenya PLC & another (Environment and Land Case E075 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 990 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 990 (KLR)16 Feb 2026followed
- Nirestein v Director of Public Prosecution & 5 others (Environment & Land Petition E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2870 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 2870 (KLR)27 Mar 2025distinguished
- Gestered Professional Services v KCB Kenya Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1468 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1468 (KLR)25 Mar 2025followed
- Oduory & another v Ncba Bank Kenya Ltd & another (Environment & Land Case E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1355 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1355 (KLR)20 Mar 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dominic & 3 others v County Government of Narok & 4 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E004 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5677 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). not_stated_in_judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5677/eng@2024-08-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.