After Decades of Uncertainty, Orwa Ranch Elders Get Temporary Relief

By James Gitaka

For years, Rhoda Kitamba says uncertainty over Orwa Group Ranch has made it difficult to invest in her home and livelihood.

Since 2019, she has operated a small posho mill in the ranch area. She says repeated eviction warnings from people she did not know left her unable to complete improvements on her property, including a pit latrine.

“I can’t even finish my latrine project because they keep telling me I have to leave,” she said.

Kitamba is among residents of Orwa Group Ranch, a roughly 13,000-hectare community ranch near Marich in West Pokot County that has been at the centre of a long-running dispute over land, membership and governance.

The latest development came on June 3, 2026, when the Environment and Land Court in Kitale issued a temporary injunction in ELC No. E013 of 2026, Orwa Group Ranch v. Simon Ngolekong Merii & Others.

The order temporarily restrained the parties from selling, transferring, subdividing, leasing, mining or otherwise interfering with land identified as West Pokot/Orwa Group Ranch/1, 2 and 3. It also placed an inhibition on the relevant title registers for one year.

The order does not determine ownership of the disputed land. Instead, it preserves the status quo as the substantive legal proceedings continue.

For elderly residents who have spent years moving between government offices, courts and peaceful demonstrations, the injunction has brought a measure of relief.

A disputed membership register

Orwa Group Ranch was declared an adjudication section between 1978 and 1981. Records cited in previous proceedings indicate that the original membership register contained 345 people.

Community members say the register later expanded to 1,343 names.

The difference has become one of the central issues in the dispute. Some original members allege that additional names were irregularly introduced during the adjudication process and that people with legitimate claims were excluded.

Those allegations remain disputed and have not been treated in this article as established facts.

The disagreement has affected more than questions of ownership. Residents say businesses have been disrupted, construction projects delayed and families left uncertain about the future of the land on which they live and work.

Police raised concerns in 2020

Concerns over the subdivision process had reached state authorities several years before the latest court order.

A National Police Service letter dated December 29, 2020, addressed to the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement, advised that the subdivision of Orwa Ranch be halted because of security concerns.

The correspondence also raised allegations that the adjudication office had been misled and referred to what it described as a false membership register. It further raised questions concerning the conduct of some land officials.

The letter is significant as documentary evidence that concerns over the dispute had been communicated to a government institution in 2020. It is not, however, by itself proof that the allegations contained in the correspondence were established.

The original letter should be retained by the newsroom as supporting documentation, including its date and any official reference or registration number appearing on the document.

Dispute moves through the courts

The community’s grievances have been pursued through several legal and administrative processes.

In 2019, applicants filed judicial review proceedings challenging decisions relating to the administration and representation of Orwa Group Ranch. Among the issues raised was the legality of a 2016 incorporation certificate issued to representatives of the ranch.

The applicants also questioned the management of compensation connected to land used for electricity infrastructure and alleged that bona fide members had been excluded from decisions affecting the ranch.

In a related matter, a Kapenguria court referred the dispute to mediation in September 2024 in an attempt to reach a settlement.

The mediation failed.

In a ruling delivered on January 16, 2025, Chief Magistrate Bernard Odengo, in Republic v. Simon Ngolekong Merii and Nine Others (Case No. E1006/2021), noted that attempts to resolve the dispute through mediation had failed and directed the matter towards a full hearing.

The criminal proceedings and the 2026 Environment and Land Court case are separate proceedings and should not be treated as establishing the community’s allegations as fact.

Questions over compensation

The land dispute is also connected to a separate controversy over compensation for electricity infrastructure.

Proceedings have referred to approximately KSh38 million in compensation associated with easements for transmission infrastructure linked to the Turkwel Dam.

A separate criminal case concerns an allegation involving more than KSh34 million.

The figures arise from different proceedings and should not be treated as interchangeable.

In the criminal matter, Enos Lomuale Rianosia was charged with obtaining registration by false pretence under Section 320 of the Penal Code. Prosecutors allege that he falsely represented himself and others as legitimate officials of Orwa Group Ranch in connection with the acquisition of more than KSh34 million from the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO).

The allegations remain subject to determination by the court and should not be presented as convictions or established wrongdoing.

Officials asked to respond

The Media sought responses from relevant public officials concerning the allegations and the disputed adjudication process.

The then West Pokot County Commissioner, Khalif Abdillahi, declined to discuss the matter through the media but indicated that he would respond to a formal letter. Abdillahi has since been transferred from the county.

At the time of publication, no response had been received to the formal letter.

Esther Chelimo, a West Pokot County Executive Committee Member, was also contacted for comment. Chelimo, who previously served as the county executive in charge of Lands, Housing, Physical Planning and Urban Development, said she was aware of the community’s grievances but indicated that no formal complaint had been filed with her office at the time she was contacted.

A temporary pause, not a final victory

For Kitamba and other elderly residents, the June 3 injunction offers temporary protection rather than a final resolution.

The court has yet to determine the competing claims over the land, including questions surrounding membership records, subdivision, compensation and the conduct of officials.

Those questions will ultimately depend on documentary evidence, testimony and determinations by the relevant courts and institutions.

For residents who have spent years pursuing their grievances through petitions, demonstrations and legal proceedings, the temporary order provides breathing room.

Kitamba says her hope is simple.

“All we want is peace and fairness,” she said.

For a community that has lived with uncertainty for decades, the current calm may be temporary. But while the courts consider the evidence, residents say the pause gives them an opportunity to live and work without the immediate fear of further changes to the disputed land.

The dispute, however, is far from over.

Pressenza Kenya