!'CH />~ ~~ rJ6~L!.EB Humao R,ghts ou, Human and Peoples' nights Collective Responsibility 87. In the case of Majuru v. Zimbabwe14, the Commission was quite explicit in determining that, after six months, the complainant should provide a plausible explanation for the admissibility of a case, notwithstanding its alleged non-compliance with the reasonable time. In the above-mentioned case, the Complainant lodged the Complaint with the Commission twenty-two months after the last decision, alleging both lack of resources and mental illness. In fact, the Complainant in the Majuru case alleged that he had sought assistance during the twenty-two months. The Commission maintained that the period was "beyond a reasonable man's comprehension of a reasonable period of time". mm 88. The above case law is justified as it concerns an individual who, despite his or her challenges, is considered to have had sufficient time to bring an action before the Commission. In the present case, the matter concerns fourteen individuals representing a community of 30,000 people. The nature of the case therefore differs from that case-law, since its complexity lies in the coordination of actions involving an entire community. 89.As seen from the facts, the Complainants claim that between 2014 and 2019, the government of Kenya, acting through the state-owned power generation company, Kenya Electricity Generation Company (KENGEN), and without any consultation with the Maasai in Kedong, removed 1,700 acres from Kedong Ranch and established a Resettlement Area for individuals and families evicted from Olkaria to make way for the development of the Olkaria IV geothermal project. 1,000 people (350 families) were relocated to new two-bedroom houses, occupying an area of 0.41 hectares each, on land from the Resettlement Action Plan within Kedong. 90. In view of the above, the community is naturally dispersed; That is why concerted action can indeed be quite difficult. In this regard, the internal process itself demonstrates the disparity in the community, given the complexity of the case, based on the number of people involved. 91. In fact, the cases submitted to the national courts were brought by different Claimants seeking the same redress. The first case was filed with the Nakuru High Court by the Maasai community of Kedong. The second case was brought 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) in the High Court. The third r--2!1::i--co ht in the High Court by Torome, Kerenke, and six other petitioners • ~ t - u 14 Communication 308/ 05: !'.·lichael Majuru , . Zimbabwe [ilr,LLLk.l.l ).1'.D/.lM.•t!J>..sl.L.Q!ll)Jl.!.u.!9,\l.).,:hr,L.U 'QR 05 rng'\.