The Environment and Land Court has dismissed a petition challenging the alleged illegal allocation of 1,000 acres within the Maasai Mara National Reserve to a private company five years ago, amid growing scrutiny over dealings in the prime safari tourism destination.
The court said that it lacks the authority to order criminal investigations or investigate integrity violations—functions reserved for agencies such as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
At the core of the legal dispute was land parcel LR No. 212713/1, which the petitioner claimed was unlawfully excised from the Mara Triangle Game Reserve, a globally recognised conservation zone renowned for the wildebeest migration, and allocated to Pinecrest Holdings Limited in 2019.
The petitioner, Jimmy Parnyumbe, had sought declarations that former Narok Governor Samuel Tunai and Pinecrest Holdings had violated constitutional principles on governance, integrity, and public land protection.
Filed in April 2025, the petition accused the respondents, including Narok County government, of illegally leasing the land.
The petitioner demanded nullification of the lease, verification of land records by the Ministry of Lands, and investigations into the alleged irregular transfer.
The petition wanted the court to look into the conduct of Mr Tunai while he was in office as a governor and ascertain whether there was abuse of office, with respect to the lease granted to Pinecrest by the county government.
However, the court upheld Mr Tunai’s preliminary objection against the petition, noting that the petition improperly sought judicial intervention in criminal allegations.
The court upheld Mr Tunai's argument that it lacked supervisory jurisdiction over agencies of the criminal justice system.
Justice Lucy Gacheru ruled that issues touching on abuse of office, corruption, or criminal conduct are constitutionally reserved for public bodies such as the EACC and DCI.
Mr Tunai now serves as chairman of the Kenya Medical Supplies Authority.
"Dealing with cases of contravention of the Leadership and Integrity Act is not one of the mandates of this court,” the judge held, adding that the petitioner prematurely filed the case on April 11, 2025—just weeks after requesting DCI intervention—without awaiting official findings.
The court faulted the timing of the petition and emphasised that allegations of corruption must first undergo statutory investigations before reaching court.
“This petition was brought to court prematurely and is against the doctrine of exhaustion,” the judge said, stressing that statutory mechanisms must first be allowed to run their course before a matter is escalated to court.
Pinecrest Holdings defended its lease, asserting lawful acquisition from Narok County under a 2019 agreement registered under the Land Act.
It added that the petitioner failed to plead with precision as to how the leasing of the suit property had posed irreversible environmental degradation.
The company argued that its interests were protected by the Land Registration Act and Article 40 of the Constitution.
The court agreed that a challenge to the validity of the lease, without clear constitutional questions, amounted to an ordinary civil land dispute.
Such a claim, the court said, should be pursued through a regular Environment and Land Court suit rather than a constitutional petition.
"This court finds and holds that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determines the Petition herein whose foundation is the alleged contravention of the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Constitution, and enforcement of the Leadership and Integrity Act,” Justice Gacheru ruled, before striking out the petition.
Managed by Narok County Government as public trust land, the reserve is a vital tourism hub supporting local livelihoods.
The petitioner had asked the court to reject the objection, arguing that he was only exercising his right to public litigation.
He said he filed the case on behalf of the people of Narok County and for the wider public good. He described himself as a concerned citizen, "who sees the importance of protecting the biodiversity and preventing the wasting of public land, which is held in trust for the people of Narok County."
While the ruling did not rule on the legality of the land allocation, it highlighted jurisdictional boundaries, affirming that criminal allegations must follow designated investigative processes.
