ARUSHA, Tanzania | The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has thrown out an application by an indigenous community in Kenya seeking to halt their eviction from ancestral lands in the Mau Forest. The Ogiek community, represented by Joseph Letuya and 14 others, had asked the Court to intervene, citing violations of their rights to property, cultural life, and freedom of movement. However, in its ruling on October 16, 2024, the Court declined to hear the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

The Ogiek community has faced repeated evictions from the Mau Forest, a vital ecosystem they have traditionally relied upon for their livelihoods and cultural practices. The community argued that the Kenyan government’s actions, including renewed evictions, violated their fundamental rights as protected under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The applicants had sought urgent relief from the Court, including a temporary injunction to prevent further evictions and property destruction until a resettlement plan could be implemented.

The case was not the first time the Ogiek had brought their grievances to court. In a ruling in 2017, the African Court had previously found Kenya in violation of the Ogiek’s rights and ordered reparations. However, the community contended that these orders had not been fully implemented, prompting the new application for further judicial intervention.

The African Court’s dismissal hinged on a procedural issue: Kenya has not deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol establishing the Court. This Declaration is necessary for the Court to accept cases brought directly by individuals or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Without it, the Court ruled that it lacked the authority to hear the Ogiek’s application, regardless of the merits of their claims.

The Court noted that the earlier case (Application No. 006/2012) had already been resolved on both the merits and reparations. The current application, therefore, could not be treated as a continuation but rather as a new case. Given the absence of Kenya’s Declaration under Article 34(6), the Court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, stating that it had no legal basis to proceed.

The decision brings to light a significant barrier to accessing the African Court for communities and individuals whose States have not submitted the required Declaration. This procedural limitation effectively denies the Ogiek community, and others in similar situations, an opportunity to seek justice at the regional level, even when domestic remedies have proven inadequate or unimplemented.

For the Ogiek, the ruling is a setback in their fight to secure recognition and protection of their ancestral lands. Despite previous favorable judgments, the community remains vulnerable to eviction without the legal recourse they had hoped for at the African Court.

Legal representatives for the Ogiek, led by Roy Koimett, have expressed disappointment with the outcome but remain determined to pursue other avenues for justice. They may opt to re-engage with Kenyan domestic courts or seek support from regional human rights bodies, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The Ogiek’s case has attracted significant attention due to its implications for indigenous land rights and the protection of cultural heritage. Their struggle reflects broader issues faced by many indigenous groups across the continent who seek to preserve their traditional ways of life against the pressures of modern development and conservation policies that often exclude their voices.