/li"'r) 6~L!.Ef1 Human s ;ghIB ou, Human and Peoples' Rights Co!leGtive Responsibility 75. The first case was filed in the Nakuru High Court, challenging the ownership of Kedong's land. However, the judge stated that the ranch as a whole belonged to a legal entity known as Kedong Ranch ltd. A subsequent appeal filed by the community living within the ranch was rejected , and the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. At the height of state-sanctioned harassment and evictions in 2005. 76. The Complainants further evoke that a petition was submitted to the Constitutional Court, alleging violation of several constitutional provisions, the basis of which is the allegation that the property subject to the case is the Petitioners' ancestral land, a private land, as defined by the Constitution. The petition was rejected , based on the absence of proof of violation of the right to property, rights to dignity, torture, education, housing or health, and all the other rights mentioned. 77. The Complainants state that on 19 October 2019, Torome, Kerenke and six other petitioners brought another case in the High Court against Kedong Ranch Company Limited, the Kenya Railway Company, the National Land Commission and the Attorney General of Kenya. The Petitioners demanded recognition of their collective land rights and the invalidation of the land lease agreement of Kedong Ranch Company Limited. The case was filed on behalf of ~he 4,000 Maasai families with a total of 35,000 individuals living within Kedong Ranch. The cases in Kenya's High Court and Court of Appeal have all been decided against the Kitel people. 78. The complainants state that the latter case was brought before the High Court by Parkire Stephen Munkasio and 14 others (suing on their own behalf and on behalf of their families and all members of the Maasai community living in this place. The process sought to assert the property rights of the applicants (whose families are subject to the imminent eviction that triggered this Communication before the commission) and to prevent the government from harassing or forcibly causing the removal of their property. 79. Based on the factual evidence described above, the community proactively turned to all national judicial bodies, including at the highest level, without any success. As such, the matter was dealt with extensively at national level, and it was given sufficient time to resolve the problem , which it did by dismissing all the cases submitted. The decision to refer the matter to the Commission is therefore within its rights , as it concerns Article 56 (5). 80. The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has explained the ,-..~ to the sufficient time granted to the Respondent State to resolve Indeed, it stated in the case of the African Commission on Human a ~ .-"'· "'·