How legitimate is the claim that Somalis would taken East Africa had British not stepped in?

[Jimmy Hopkins]

According to Documents by the British they claimed that in the 17th and 18th Century, Certain Somali Tribes along with Galla [Oromo] would've swept through Kenya and the British had to personally step in and invest a lot into stopping this from taking part and Majority of what is known as Kenya would've been Somali-Owned had it not been for the British.

However many also say that the British used this as Propaganda to justify their settlement and intervention in Kenya.

Which is it exactly?

 

[The alchemist]

No. That was a colonialist justification ploy. So was the anti-slavery policy of the British crown -- all for imperial capture.

Somalis existed in the region of Kenya long before Britain was a thing. Northern Kenya and northeast-eastern Kenya were inhabited by pastoralists such as Somalis. There was absolutely no historical evidence of us wanting to expand further on the Bantu land. However, we did facilitate trade flows into the region, which was a positive influence.

 

[The Oponian Guild]

I believe the passage you infer is refering to Kenya not all of Eastern Africa, most pre Darod wave Somalis who lived in jubaland and north eastern kenya weren’t at constant war with the neighbouring groups and lived in agreement.

it was only three clans who had come from the north who wanted to push further, marexan, Ogaden, and the Harti grouping on the coast. and this was in itself due to grazing land scarcity, internecine clan wars and possibly triggered by drought years.

 

[Soul Kaizer]