Wakilii

Residents of the Mau Forest Complex (represented by the Centre for Comparative and International Law and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa) v Republic of Kenya (Communication 735-19)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2022] ACHPR 4 · 2022 Communication Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging imminent eviction of residents from the Mau Forest Complex in Kenya, struck out for want of diligent prosecution
Decision
Communication struck out for failure to prosecute

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 Commission struck out the communication for want of diligent prosecution. The complainants failed to submit evidence and arguments on admissibility within the two-month deadline or apply for an extension. Almost three years elapsed without any submission, demonstrating lack of interest in prosecuting the communication.

Outcome

Communication struck out for failure to prosecute

Facts

The complainants filed a communication on behalf of 60,000 families residing in the Mau Forest Complex in Kenya who faced imminent eviction. The complainants alleged that 40,000 residents had already been evicted in July 2018 without due process, and that Phase Two evictions threatened another 60,000 families. The Commission seized the communication and issued provisional measures in November 2019. The complainants were requested to submit evidence and arguments on admissibility within two months, with a deadline of 9 January 2020. One co-counsel withdrew representation in July 2020 citing difficulty accessing information from the other counsel. The complainants never submitted on admissibility and did not apply for an extension. Almost three years elapsed without any submission from the complainants.

Issues

  1. Whether the complainants demonstrated diligent prosecution of the communication by submitting evidence and arguments on admissibility within the stipulated time or applying for an extension.

Orders

  • Communication struck out against the Republic of Kenya for want of diligent prosecution.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Procedural Requirements — Diligent Prosecution of Communications
Where a complainant fails to submit evidence and arguments on admissibility within the stipulated time, fails to apply for an extension, and allows almost three years to elapse without any submission, the Commission may strike out the communication for want of diligent prosecution.

Legislation cited (6)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 17
  • Land (Group Representatives) Act

Cases cited (7)

  • Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (Communication 299/05)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application 006/12)
  • Kalyasoi Farmers' Co-operative Society & 6 Others v County Council of Narok
  • Joseph Kimeto Ole Mapelu & 12 Others v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Land Housing and Urban Development & 11 Others
  • Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 612/16)
  • Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communications 637/16 and 639/16)
  • Kofi Yamagnane v Togo (Communication 387/10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Residents of the Mau Forest Complex (represented by the Centre for Comparative and International Law and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa) v Republic of Kenya (Communication 735-19) [2022] ACHPR 4 (9 November 2022)
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.