Ministry of Lands reveals why settlement of Eastern Mau residents stalled

The Ministry of Lands has disclosed a series of logistical, financial, and operational challenges that have slowed implementation of a court judgment ordering the settlement of residents in six schemes within the Eastern Mau Forest area.

In a status report filed in court, the ministry said the survey exercise was hampered by rough terrain and prolonged bad weather, which reduced working hours for field teams. Poor satellite network coverage also interfered with the efficiency of survey equipment in some parts of the forest.

Other setbacks included inadequate funding for monumentation materials such as beacons and boundary pillars, delayed commencement of work due to frequent meetings convened by local politicians, lack of conferencing facilities for daily computations, and insufficient transport for survey teams.

To address the challenges, the ministry recommended the allocation of more vehicles in the next phase of the exercise to improve mobility for both security personnel and casual workers. It also proposed increased funding for monumentation and labour costs.

The report follows a judgment delivered on September 30, 2024, by the Environment and Land Court. The court issued 10 orders, three of which were directed to the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning.

One of the orders required the government to implement Legal Notice No. 142 of October 8, 2001, by establishing and clearly delineating the forest boundary between the settlement schemes within 12 months of the judgment through placement of visible beacons on the ground.

To implement the order, the department prepared a budget of Sh16.03 million on February 14, 2024. The budget was approved by the Principal Secretary for Lands and Physical Planning on February 18, 2025. The funds were meant to cater for officers’ allowances, fuel and vehicle maintenance, monumentation materials, security, and infrastructure costs.

A team of 28 officers carried out the exercise between April 21 and May 18, 2025. During this period, they demarcated the forest boundary from Sururu to Baraget by erecting a total of 75 pillars.

According to the ministry, this work amounted to the implementation of Order No. 3 of the constitutional petition.

The ministry listed several activities yet to be completed, including extension of survey controls for individual parcel beaconing, preparation of survey placing data for eight settlement schemes, beaconing of individual parcels in nine schemes, compilation of survey data, preparation of survey plans and registry index maps, and monumentation of the remaining 48 boundary points.

It said completion of the remaining tasks will depend on improved funding, transport, and logistical support in the next phase of the exercise.

The survey team established that about 1,000 acres in the Likia settlement scheme are covered by indigenous forest and were previously surveyed as Likia Extension before being allegedly reverted to forest, with some allottees compensated. Another 2,500 acres between Mariashoni and Baraget, though surveyed as the Mariashoni settlement scheme, were also found to be forested.

In the ruling, the Environment and Land Court in Nakuru ordered the government to settle residents living in Nessuit, Mariashoni, Sururu, Likia, Sigotik and Teret settlement schemes, covering 35,301 hectares in Eastern Mau.

“The petitioners have established that they were legally settled in the schemes from 1995 and are rightfully in occupation of the land,” Justice John Mutungi ruled.

The case was filed by Nessuit MCA Samuel Tonui on behalf of residents through advocates Kipkoech Ng’etich and Renny Langat. They argued that the settlers occupied the land following the lawful expropriation of 35,301 hectares by the then Environment Minister Katana Ngala through Legal Notice No. 142 of October 8, 2001.

Residents sought to block government evictions and challenged earlier attempts to degazette the land, including Legal Notice No. 889 of January 30, 2001, issued by then Minister Francis Nyenze. They also asked the court to affirm the legality of the 2001 excision.

Justice Mutungi found that the government had created the six settlement schemes to resettle landless Kenyans and victims of the 1992 ethnic clashes. He noted that the government issued a 28-day notice on January 30, 2001, declaring its intention to alter the Eastern Mau boundary before formally excising the land in October of the same year.

“The two notices have never been vacated or overturned, and it is clear that those people living within the specified hectares were validly settled,” the judge ruled.

The court ordered the government, within 12 months, to re-establish boundaries, physically place beacons, verify and authenticate all allottees, and issue title deeds to eligible residents. Titles already issued were declared valid and protected.

However, residents outside the demarcated settlement areas and encroaching on forest land were ordered to vacate, failing which the Kenya Forest Service would be at liberty to evict them under the Land Act.

Justice Mutungi also imposed strict environmental conditions, directing landowners to protect riparian reserves and restore tree cover to at least 30 per cent of their land within 60 months. The Interior Ministry, the Kenya Forest Service, the National Environment Management Authority, and the Water Resources Authority were tasked with overseeing compliance.