Wakilii

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya; Kilel and Others v Kenya (Application No. 006-2012)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 43 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for intervention at reparations stage in ongoing proceedings between African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and Republic of Kenya
Decision
Application for intervention dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction

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 it lacked personal jurisdiction to consider an application for intervention by individuals. The Protocol and Rules permit only State Parties to intervene in ongoing proceedings under Article 5(2) of the Protocol and Rule 53 of the Rules. Individuals are not permitted to intervene, even where the underlying proceedings concern their community. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for intervention dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction

Facts

Kipsang Kilel and others, members of the Ogiek Community residing in the Tinet Settlement Scheme in South West Mau Forest, applied to intervene at the reparations stage of proceedings between the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Republic of Kenya. The applicants alleged they were genuine Ogiek members who had been issued title deeds by the Kenyan government in 2005. They claimed the Court's interim order freezing land transactions in the Mau Forest prejudiced them by preventing them from charging their land to obtain financing. They further alleged the original judgment was obtained fraudulently by concealing that some Ogiek had been settled and issued title deeds, and that the suit was filed without their authority. They sought leave to intervene in the reparations proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for intervention by individuals in proceedings commenced by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights against a State Party.

Orders

  • Declared that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the Application for intervention.
  • Dismissed the Application for intervention.
  • Ordered that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Intervention — Standing of Individuals — African Court Protocol
Under the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Rules of Court, only State Parties may intervene in ongoing proceedings before the African Court; individuals are not permitted to intervene even where the proceedings concern their community or interests.
Jurisdiction — Personal Jurisdiction — Intervention Applications
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction to entertain an application for intervention where the applicants are individuals and the Protocol and Rules provide no basis for individual intervention, notwithstanding that the underlying proceedings were properly commenced by the African Commission.
Jurisdiction — Duty to Examine Jurisdiction Proprio Motu
The Court is duty bound to examine whether it has jurisdiction in a particular matter even where none of the parties has raised any objection to its jurisdiction.

Cases cited (2)

  • Lohe Issa Konate v Burkina Faso (2014) 1 AfCLR 314
  • Wilson Bargetuny Koimet and Others v Kenya (Application No. 006-2012) [2019] AfCHPR (4 July 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya; Kilel and Others v Kenya (Application No. 006-2012) [2019] AfCHPR 43 (28 November 2019)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.