The Court of Appeal has blocked attempts to introduce new evidence from Parliament and add fresh parties to a prolonged legal battle over a lucrative 4,000-acre parcel within the Maasai Mara National Reserve.
The contested land, known as Cis-Mara/Talek/155, is owned by businessman Livingstone Kunini Ntutu, who is a brother of Narok Governor Patrick Ntutu.
In two separate rulings, a three-judge bench dismissed applications by private individual Antony Kilerai and the Maasai Mara Disabled Self-Help Group, who sought to join the appeal and submit new materials.
The judges cited strict appellate rules and concerns over disrupting ongoing proceedings.
The dispute, spanning over 25 years, involves multiple court cases challenging ownership of the tract, which lies within the Maasai Mara ecosystem—a tourism hub generating billions annually.
In March 2025, the Environment and Land Court upheld businessman Ntutu’s ownership rights, including tourism fee collection, a decision now appealed by Narok County Government over the title’s validity.
Mr Kilerai and the self-help group aimed to present evidence allegedly proving Mr Ntutu’s title was fraudulent or nonexistent.
Mr Kilerai’s submissions included correspondence from the Lands Cabinet Secretary, Hansard records from Parliament’s Lands Committee, and other documents.
However, the court dismissed both applications. For Kilerai, it ruled that joining an appeal requires demonstrating direct legal interest—a threshold his public-interest argument failed to meet, especially with the county already litigating on residents’ behalf. The judges also barred new evidence, stressing appellate courts avoid reopening untested issues from lower courts.
For now, Narok County’s appeal remains the sole challenge to Mr Ntutu’s title, with interim orders permitting his continued fee collection (under accounting) pending the outcome.
Kilerai’s reliance on Parliamentary records was particularly criticised. The bench warned that interested parties cannot introduce new issues for determination, as this would unfairly expand the appeal’s scope.
It further blocked sourcing evidence via Parliament amid active litigation, calling it a collateral attack on judicial authority.
“Additional evidence on appeal is exceptional, not routine,” the court stated, rejecting the materials outright.
The self-help group’s application was dismissed procedurally, as the unregistered association lacked legal standing.
Despite claims of representing vulnerable locals dependent on Mara revenues, the judges maintained the case was a private land dispute requiring strict adherence to legal capacity rules.
The bench also rejected conflict-of-interest allegations against Narok County, noting Governor Ntutu’s non-involvement—the litigation predates his tenure by decades—and the county’s independent legal representation ensured impartiality.
The rulings confine the appeal to its original parties and existing record, reinforcing that appellate courts do not retry facts or entertain new disputes.
Mr Ntutu asserts he lawfully acquired the land in 1997 after Talek’s adjudication, extinguishing prior county claims.
The county, however, insists the land was never properly surveyed or adjudicated and remains part of the Mara reserve. The appeal will ultimately resolve these competing claims.
