African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No. 006-2012)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held that neither the Protocol nor the Rules provide a mechanism permitting third parties who are not State parties to intervene in ongoing proceedings. Even where States are permitted to intervene, this must be done before the close of pleadings. The Applications were filed one year and eleven months after the judgment on merits and six years and eight months after the case was originally filed, with no explanation for the delay. The Court declared the Applications inadmissible.
Outcome
Applications for intervention dismissed as inadmissible
Facts
On 26 May 2017, the African Court delivered judgment on merits in a case filed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights against Kenya concerning violations of the rights of the Ogiek Community of the Greater Mau Forest. The Court reserved determination on reparations. On 16 April 2019, two groups of individuals filed Applications seeking to intervene: Wilson Barngetuny Koimet and 119 others, and Peter Kibiegon Rono and 1300 others. The Applicants claimed to be registered owners of land within the Greater Mau Forest Complex since 1958 and argued that the Court's judgment would affect their interests as landowners. They alleged that members of the Ogiek Community had misled the Court and that some Ogiek had sold land to non-Ogiek including the intended intervenors. The Applicants sought to join the proceedings to protect their rights before the Court issued its judgment on reparations.
Issues
- Whether third-party individuals may intervene in ongoing proceedings before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights after judgment on merits has been delivered.
- Whether the Protocol and Rules of the African Court permit intervention by non-State parties.
- Whether the Applications for intervention were filed within the prescribed time limits.
Orders
- Applications declared inadmissible.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.