Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedAppeal from CMCC No. 20 of 2017 (consolidated suits CMCC No. 21 to 28 of 2017)· [2020] KEELC 2172 (KLR)

Maua Komo Muli v Kenya Wildlife Services [2020] KEELC 2172 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 June 2020
OAO. A. Angote
2,306 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that wildlife compensation claims must follow the statutory process under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Environment and Land Court, Machakos, against a ruling of the Chief Magistrate's Court in Kitui (R. Ombata, RM) in CMCC No. 20 of 2017, in which the plaintiff's suit - a claim for general and special damages after a poisonous snake bite on 21st March 2015, pleaded partly in common law negligence and partly under section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 - had been struck out for want of jurisdiction. The Appellant advanced nine grounds arguing that the magistrate had jurisdiction, that the claim was founded on the tort of negligence, and that there was no ouster of court jurisdiction, relying on the Kalonzo and Alex Macharia decisions. The Respondent contended that the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, that the statutory compensation procedure under the Act had to be strictly followed per Karume and Peter Muturi Njuguna, and that bias was unproved. The court first found that it had jurisdiction: the Plaint expressly claimed damages under section 25, and section 25(6) channels appeals to the National Environment Tribunal and then the Environment and Land Court, not the High Court. On the merits, the court held that a claimant invoking section 25 must follow the statutory compensation mechanism before the Committee, Tribunal and this court, and that the magistrate did not err in finding she had no jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals in wildlife compensation claims

Holding

Since the Appellant's claim was wholly based on section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, appeals lie to the Environment and Land Court and not the High Court; this court therefore has jurisdiction over the appeal

Reasoning

The Plaint expressly claimed general damages under section 25 of the Act. Section 25(6) designates the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee, the National Environment Tribunal and the Environment and Land Court as the bodies handling such claims, with no reference to the High Court. The court thus found its own jurisdiction and answered the first issue affirmatively.

p. 3
02

Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that she lacked jurisdiction over the suit

Holding

The magistrate did not err; having pleaded a claim under section 25 of the Act, the Appellant was obliged to follow the statutory compensation procedure before moving to the Tribunal and this court

Reasoning

The court held that the damages sought were hinged on section 25 and had nothing to do with common law negligence as submitted. The Court of Appeal authorities of Karume and Peter Muturi Njuguna require strict adherence to statutory redress procedures. A litigant wishing to avoid the section 25 procedure should not have pleaded the claim under that provision.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a statute prescribes a specific procedure for redress, that procedure must be strictly followed before recourse to the courts
  • Claims for wildlife compensation under section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act are appealable to the Environment and Land Court, not the High Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Wildlife Conservation and Management ActSection 25; Section 25(6)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 47; Article 159
  • Fair Administrative Action Actnull
  • Environment and Land Court Actnull

Cases cited (4)

  • Kenya Wildlife Service vs. Joseph Musyoki Kalonzo
    (2017) eKLR
  • Alex Macharia vs. Kenya Wildlife Services
    (2019) eKLR
  • Speaker of the National Assembly vs. Karume
    (1992) KLR 22
  • Peter Muturi Njuguna vs. Kenya Wildlife Services
    (2017) eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Kitui
CMCC No. 20 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 25(6) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 vesting appeals on compensation claims in the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maua Komo Muli v Kenya Wildlife Services [2020] KEELC 2172 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Appeal from CMCC No. 20 of 2017 (consolidated suits CMCC No. 21 to 28 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2172/eng@2020-06-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.