Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateStruck OutNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEMC 181 (KLR)

Khami (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Musomi Rova Luma) v Kenya Wildlife Service (Civil Suit E005 of 2024) [2024] KEMC 181 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court
30 October 2024
FMFlavian M. Mulama
1,136 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If wildlife in Kenya injured you or killed a family member, your claim starts with the County Wildlife Compensation Committee, not the courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In a suit arising from injury or death allegedly caused by wildlife, the magistrate suo moto raised the question of the court's jurisdiction and invited the parties to submit, the defendant undertaking to file a formal preliminary objection within seven days but failing to do so. The court nonetheless considered the law on preliminary objections, applying Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors (1969) EA 696 on what constitutes a preliminary objection and Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd on the foundational nature of jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, read with section 117, provides that persons injured or killed by wildlife listed in the Third Schedule may launch claims before the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee, with prescribed compensation of up to five million shillings for death. Following the binding Court of Appeal decision in KWS v Purity Kanini (Nyeri CA No. 30 of 2020), the court held that the statutory dispute resolution mechanism was intended to be the primary forum for such claims, being less cumbersome and benefiting from specialized knowledge, and that direct court access is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the statutory mechanism would not serve the ends of justice. Finding no exceptional circumstances shown by the plaintiff, the court held it lacked requisite jurisdiction, struck out the suit, and ordered each party to bear their own costs given that the jurisdictional issue was raised by the court itself. Judgment delivered at Lamu Law Courts on 30 October 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; the claim belongs to the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee under section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, and the plaintiff showed no exceptional circumstances justifying direct court access.

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in KWS v Purity Kanini (Nyeri CA No. 30 of 2020), which is binding on courts below, the magistrate held that section 25 was intended to channel wildlife injury and death claims to the statutory committee mechanism, which is less cumbersome and benefits from specialized knowledge of human-wildlife interaction. The court adopted the position that by-passing that mechanism requires exceptional circumstances, none of which the plaintiff demonstrated, and so the suit was struck out.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 channels claims for death or injury caused by wildlife to the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee, and the court is a forum of first resort only in exceptional circumstances.
  • A court without jurisdiction must down tools immediately.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit.
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 as read with section 117 of the same Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khami (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Musomi Rova Luma) v Kenya Wildlife Service (Civil Suit E005 of 2024) [2024] KEMC 181 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2024/181/eng@2024-10-30

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