African Human Rights CLA 2.0

according to the Complainants, that the community would receive 25% of the tourist revenue from the game reserve and 85% of the employment generated, and that cattle dips and fresh water dams would be constructed by the Respondent State. 8. The Complainants allege that after several meetings to determine financial compensation for the relocation of the 400 families, the KWS stated it would provide 3,150 Kenya Shillings per family. The Complainants allege that none of these terms have been implemented and that only 170 out of the 400 families were eventually given some money in 1986, years after the agreements were concluded. The Complainants state that the money given to the 170 families was always understood to be a means of facilitating relocation rather than compensation for the Endorois’ loss. 9. The Complainants state that to reclaim their ancestral land and to safeguard their pastoralist way of life, the Endorois petitioned to meet with President Daniel Arap Moi, who was their local Member of th Parliament. A meeting was held on 28 December 1994 at his Lake Bogoria Hotel. 10. The Complainants state that as a result of this meeting, the President directed the local authority to respect the 1973 agreement on compensation and directed that 25% of annual income towards community projects be given to the Endorois. In November of the following year, upon being notified by the Endorois community that nothing had been implemented, the Complainants state that President Moi again ordered that his directives be followed. 11. The Complainants state that following the non-implementation of the directives of President Moi, the Endorois began legal action against Baringo and Koibatek county councils. Judgment was given th 2 on 19 April 2002 dismissing the application. Although the High Court recognised that Lake Bogoria had been Trust Land for the Endorois, it stated that the Endorois had effectively lost any legal claim as a result of the designation of the land as a game reserve in 1973 and in 1974. It concluded that the money given in 1986 to 170 families for the cost of relocating represented the fulfilment of any duty owed by the authorities towards the Endorois for the loss of their ancestral land. 12. The Complainants state that the High Court also stated clearly that it could not address the issue of a community’s collective right to property, referring throughout to “individuals” affected and stating that “there is no proper identity of the people who were affected by the setting aside of the land … that has been shown to the Court” . The Complainants also claim that the High Court stated that it did not believe Kenyan law should address any special protection to a people’s land based on historical occupation and cultural rights. 13. The Complainants allege that since the Kenyan High Court case in 2000, the Endorois community has become aware that parts of their ancestral land have been demarcated and sold by 3 the Respondent State to third parties. 14. The Complainants further allege that concessions for ruby mining on Endorois traditional land were granted in 2002 to a private company. This included the construction of a road in order to facilitate access for heavy mining machinery. The Complainants claim that these activities incur a high risk of polluting the waterways used by the Endorois community, both for their own personal consumption and for use by their livestock. Both mining operations and the demarcation and sale of land have continued despite the request by the African Commission to the President of Kenya to suspend these activities pending the outcome of the present communication. 15. The Complainants state that following the commencement of legal action on behalf of the community, some improvements were made to the community members’ access to the Lake. For example, they are no longer required to pay game reserve entrance fees. The Complainants, nevertheless, allege that this access is subject to the game reserve authority's discretion. They claim that the Endorois still have limited access to Lake Bogoria for grazing their cattle, for religious purposes, and for collecting traditional herbs. They also state that the lack of legal certainty surrounding access rights and rights of usage renders the Endorois completely dependent on the game reserve authority's discretion to grant these rights on an ad hocbasis. 16. The Complainants claim that land for the Endorois is held in very high esteem, since tribal land, in addition to securing subsistence and livelihood, is seen as sacred, being inextricably linked to the cultural integrity of the community and its traditional way of life. Land, they claim, belongs to the community and not the individual and is essential to the preservation and survival as a traditional people. The Complainants claim that the Endorois health, livelihood, religion and culture are all