Haji & 6 others v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife & 8 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1239 (KLR)

The Petitioners furnished no certificate or evidence of registration under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The 4th Respondent confirmed no application had been received/registered, and the 5th and 7th Respondents acknowledged registration was pending, with the process ongoing including consultations and a management plan under Section 44. Prayers 1, 2 and 3, premised on a subsisting registration, therefore could not issue as a court cannot quash a non-existent decision.

Under Article 63(3) of the Constitution and Sections 4, 6(1) and 6(8) of the Community Land Act, unregistered community land is held in trust by the County Government, which may not dispose of or convert it to private purposes. The 6th Respondent denied alienation, and the Petitioners produced no documentation of transfer, lease or mortgage. The County Government, as trustee, actually endorsed the conservancy. The alleged deprivation was thus unsupported.

Citing Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, the court held the Petitioners set out various provisions allegedly violated without clarity as to the manner of infringement. Relying on Leonard Otieno v Airtel Kenya, the court reiterated that violations of constitutional rights cannot be established in a factual vacuum on generalized, unsupported allegations. The Petition's premise — that the 5th Respondent was a registered conservancy — was itself unproved.

The 6th Respondent affirmed members of the public were being involved as required by law; the 5th and 7th Respondents exhibited evidence of consultations with the County Government, KWS and the Cabinet Secretary, and of a management plan preparation process under Section 44 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The court found no rebuttal of the assertion that registration was underway with public involvement.