Kenya Wildlife Service v Kanini (Suing as the Next Friend to Edward Koome) (Civil Appeal 30 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1127 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that people injured by wildlife must claim compensation through the County Wildlife Committee, not the courts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 ousts the jurisdiction of the courts over claims for bodily injury caused by wildlife
The claim lay exclusively with the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee; the trial court lacked original jurisdiction, and the learned Judge erred in holding otherwise.
Section 18 establishes the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee; section 19 gives it the mandate to review and recommend claims for loss or damage caused by wildlife; section 25 provides the procedure for launching, verification and payment of such claims. Although section 25(1) uses 'may', following Peter Muturi Njuguna the specific statutory procedure had to be strictly followed. The respondent lodged a complaint with the Committee but abandoned it and went to court; there were no exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention.
Whether the two conflicting Court of Appeal decisions (Peter Muturi Njuguna and Kenya Wildlife Service v Joseph Musyoki Kilonzo) required the High Court to adopt one interpretation
The High Court had followed Kilonzo (that section 25(1) does not oust the court's jurisdiction), but this Court resolved the conflict in favour of the Njuguna line: the statutory procedure must be exhausted.
In Kilonzo the Court found the use of 'may' and the absence of an express ouster meant the aggrieved party could choose the Committee or the court. In Njuguna, construing the analogous section 62(1) of the repealed Act, the Court held that although 'may' is ordinarily permissive, once a claimant chose to claim, he was compelled to lodge it at the appointed forum. The present Court adopted the Njuguna reasoning and applied the Supreme Court's exhaustion jurisprudence.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute provides a specific dispute resolution mechanism for claims for injuries or death caused by wildlife under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, that procedure must be followed and the courts have no original jurisdiction over such claims; the use of 'may' in section 25(1) does not confer an option to bypass the statutory forum.
- A person injured by wildlife must pursue the statutory compensation procedure through the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee, and failure to force a dilatory committee to act by judicial review does not entitle the claimant to proceed directly to court absent exceptional circumstances.
- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal's mandate is confined to matters of law and it will not interfere with findings of fact by the two courts below unless they considered matters they should not have, or failed to consider matters they should have.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs
- 2.The respondent's suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Meru
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate statute; mandate limited to matters of law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- John (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Paul Mutua Kasimu - Deceased) v Kenya Wildlife Service & another (Civil Case E228 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 318 (KLR)[2025] KEMC 318 (KLR)16 Dec 2025
- John (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Paul Mutua Kasimu - Deceased) v Kenya Wildlife Service & another (Civil Case E228 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 318 (KLR)[2025] KEMC 318 (KLR)16 Dec 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Wildlife Service v Kanini (Suing as the Next Friend to Edward Koome) (Civil Appeal 30 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1127 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Court of Appeal at Nyeri (from High Court at Meru appeal; suit originating in Maua CMCC No. 192 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1127/eng@2024-09-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.