Osman & 164 others (Suing on Their Behalf and Behalf of Residents of Merti Sub-County, Chari, and Cherab Wards in Isiolo County) v Northern Rangelands Trust & 8 others (Petition E006 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 99 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court has declared two Isiolo conservancies unconstitutional for lack of public participation and banned their armed rangers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of community members suing on their own behalf and on behalf of residents
The petitioners disclosed their community, group and collective interests and the nexus to the suit land; they have locus standi under articles 22 and 258 and rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules.
The court applied article 22(1) and (3) and article 260's expansive definition of a person. The petitioners described themselves as members of the indigenous pastoralist community living on, occupying and deriving their livelihood from the suit land, a description not controverted by any respondent. Their interests, rights and connection to the land were defined, so the nexus required by Joshua Waiganjo and Mumo Matemu was satisfied.
Exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ss 117 WCMA and 42 Community Land Act)
The objection fails: the claim is multi-faceted, tied to constitutional violations, and attempts at resolution had already been made, so the court retains jurisdiction.
Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Benson Ambuti Adega and Nicholus, the court adopted a nuanced, case-by-case approach considering the adequacy of the alternative forum. The claims did not fall exclusively under the wildlife or community land dispute mechanisms; petitions to the ombudsman, NLC, DCC and ACC had already been made and ignored; and no other body could holistically resolve the intertwined constitutional questions.
Whether the establishment of conservancies without public participation breached the Constitution
Yes. The 1st, 2nd, 7th and 8th respondents breached the principles of public participation under articles 10 and 69(1)(d), (e) and (f).
Documents relied on by the 1st respondent (registration certificate, community awareness documentation, EIA report, NEMA licence) were all prepared after the Petition was filed and did not address the creation of conservancies as required by the WCMA and EMCA. No records of meetings, gazettement, barazas or questionnaires existed before October 2021, and no approvals, EIA or feasibility studies were disclosed. Public participation must be actual, purposive and meaningful, not illusory.
Legality of the conservancies and of the armed rangers
The 1st and 3rd–6th respondents are operating conservancies outside the constitutional and legal framework, infringing property rights; the armed rangers' existence and operation are illegal and unconstitutional.
The NRT Model guide is not a government policy and cannot override the Constitution and statutes. Registration of conservancies requires applications, management plans and approvals under ss 39, 40 and 44 of the WCMA, none of which were exhibited. Rangers were not shown to be registered, vetted, trained or supervised under the National Police Service Act, and the 2nd and 7th respondents admitted no registers exist for them.
Trust obligation over unregistered community land
The 2nd and 8th respondents breached their constitutional and statutory mandates by failing to facilitate registration of the unregistered community land.
Article 63(3) and (4) of the Constitution and s 6 of the Community Land Act place unregistered community land in the trust of the county government, with the Cabinet Secretary mandated to ensure adjudication programmes (s 46(6)). Neither respondent explained measures taken to operationalize the Act in Chari and Cherab wards, and registration is what gives a community standing and protection over its land.
Legal principles established
#- Customary land rights and interests of a community over unregistered community land are constitutionally guaranteed whether or not the land is registered as community land.
- Public participation is a constitutional imperative whose absence vitiates the establishment of conservancies on unregistered community land; the burden of ensuring and facilitating public participation lies on the entity charged with the duty.
- Armed conservancy rangers cannot lawfully exercise functions reserved for duly constituted national security organs without compliance with the National Police Service Act and the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
- A party cannot approbate and reprobate: one who pleads that conservancies were lawfully established cannot simultaneously contend the issue is moot or academic.
- County governments hold unregistered community land in trust and, together with the Cabinet Secretary, are statutorily mandated to facilitate its registration under the Community Land Act.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the establishment of conservancies in Chari ward and Cherab, Merti sub county, was undertaken without due public participation and is consequently unconstitutional
- 2.A declaration that Cherab community conservancy operated and chaired by the 3rd respondent and Bulesa Biliqo community conservancy operated by the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents are operating illegally in so far as establishing and purporting to establish conservancies in Chari and Cherab wards, Merti sub county
- 3.A permanent injunction prohibiting the respondents, their agents, servants, representatives, assignees and/or umbrella bodies of the 1st respondent from entering, mapping, surveying and delineating, carrying out conservancy operations including recruitment, employment or entering into contracts, evicting community members, carrying out any activities or disposing of the unregistered community land in Chari and Cherab wards, Merti sub-county
- 4.A permanent injunction prohibiting the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents from operating or deploying Rangers or guards in any part of Chari and Cherab Ward, Merti sub county
- 5.An order directing the 2nd respondent to co-ordinate with the 8th respondent and the petitioners and offer necessary facilitation on the registration of the community land in Chari and Cherab Ward, Merti Sub County under the Community Land Act, 2016
- 6.An order directing the 7th respondent to revoke any and all licenses and authorities that may have been granted to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents related to the establishment and management of community conservancies within Cherab and Chari wards, Merti sub-county
- 7.An order compelling the 9th respondent and the Isiolo County Police Commandant to oversee the implementation of the orders and to ensure that peace and order is maintained
- 8.Costs awarded to the petitioners to be borne by the respondents jointly and severally
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23(3), 258 and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution read with the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Sasenyi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4690 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4690 (KLR)23 Jul 2026
- Kalba & another v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6277 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6277 (KLR)24 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osman & 164 others (Suing on Their Behalf and Behalf of Residents of Merti Sub-County, Chari, and Cherab Wards in Isiolo County) v Northern Rangelands Trust & 8 others (Petition E006 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 99 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated September 27, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/99/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.