Fear as Kajiado-Makueni boundary dispute threatens peace

Two communities in Makueni and Kajiado counties embroiled in a boundary dispute want the government to resolve the long-running dispute.

The two communities have previously clashed leading to the death of one person and several others injured in the Oloirien and Mikululo in Kajiado and Makueni respectively.

At stake is 73,000 hectares that cover Mikululo Ranging Company in Makueni and Oloirien trust land in Kajiado.  

The Mikululo community believes the official boundary between them and Oloirien community in Kajiado should follow Kingeleti (Ilkilunyeti) seasonal river. 

The Makueni community call the seasonal river Kingeleti while their Kajiado neighbours call it Ilkilunyeti.

A senior member of the Mikululo community, Peter Muthiani, claimed on Tuesday their Kajiado neighbours had crossed over the river and taken 22km of Makueni land.

“Our people moved into Mikululo in 1975 and later around the 1990s, the Kajiado Maasai were allowed to graze their livestock in our land. Little did we know they would turn against us,” Muthiani said.

But responding on behalf of the Kajiado Maasai, Jacob Nkananai said they received their Makueni neighbours in Oloirien in 1994 until 1995 when KWS ordered the eviction of both communities.

“In 1995, the KWS extended their wildlife dispersal area which forced us to move further from the Chyulu Hills National Park. We agreed to move but the Kamba community defied the order and were forcefully ejected by the wildlife rangers,” Nkananai said.

He claimed another eviction was ordered by KWS in 2000 after the wildlife agency further extended its dispersal area and the Oloirien Maasai moved to an area between Kiboko and Merrueshi locations.  

“When they [Kambas] were told to move, they crossed over the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute past Ilkilunyeti, which was still our land and settled there,” Nkananai said.

He said at the time, some Kamba community members were living in Kajiado in 1995 “yet the local community was not bothered by their existence until when they later claimed the part of the Maasai land the same year”.

“A fight erupted that same year and our people killed one of them before the government intervened,” he said.

After eviction, the Mikululo community went to court to contest the action.

They sought an order of permanent injunction restraining KWS from evicting their members from the land they occupied in Mikululo. 

It was at the time that Mikululo Ranging Company filed a dispute at a Machakos court against Machakos DC, the Attorney General, Kenya Wildlife Service and later the Makueni county government was incorporated in the case.

Members of Mikululo Ranching Company amended their case on June 29, 2000. 

In the amended plaint, the complainant (Mikululo) averred that in or about 1975, some people started grazing and farming in what is now known as Mikululo.

They argued in court that in 1982, the same people incorporated the plaintiff’s company and that the plaintiff’s members had been occupying 42,000 acres in Mikululo.

The plaintiff said the area was trust land which was initially under the Masaku County Council and later Makueni County Council.

They argued before Justice OA Angote that the Machakos DC allowed them to occupy the land they were already utilising.

Mikululo Ranging Company further told Justice Angote that by a gazette notice dated May 2, 1995, KWS extended its area of jurisdiction by 76 square kilometers which included the 42,000 acres.

According to Mikululo Ranging Company, after the KWS extended its area of jurisdiction, it started demolishing their homes and burnt their farm produce on the assumption the land belonged to the service.

In his ruling last year on February 22, Justice Angote observed that the allocation of the disputed land in 1995 should have complied with the law.

He said that did not happen during the extension of the boundary of Chyulu Hills National Park.

“The extension of the boundaries of Chyulu Hills National Park vide Boundary Plan No 204/71 of 1991 was neither gazetted nor followed the above provisions of the law,” the judge ruled.

Justice Angote said the views of then Makueni County Council were never sought before the extension. 

The same anomaly occurred in 1995 when a further extension of the park was done, he said.

“Consequently, the court finds that the 1998 survey of the land covering the two extensions represented in boundary plans number 204/71 and 204/76 was unconstitutional, unlawful and null.”  

“For the reasons I have given above, I find that the 3rd defendant (KWS) is not entitled to the land represented in boundary plans number 204/71 and 204/76 measuring 9,720 ha and 7,606 ha respectively.” 

On Tuesday, KWS acting head of corporate communications Paul Jinaro defended their rangers accused of beating up Maasai herders in dispersal areas even after the court ruling.

“Each community has a stake over that land but if there is any boundary dispute between them, then that is the work of the provincial administration,” Jinaro said.

He denied claims KWS was protecting one group and allowing it to graze along the wildlife dispersal area.

Kajiado county commissioner Joshua Nkanatha confirmed he was aware of the issues at the Kajiado-Makueni border.

“We are aware of this problem and next week, we shall be going with my security team to Makueni to meet with their team along with KWS officials to find an amicable solution,” Nkanatha said.

Edited by Henry Makori