Silas Mugambi v Kenya Wildlife Services

5. The respondent further contended it is only the Environment and Land Court that has appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from the National environment Tribunal and as such Courts have no original jurisdiction to hear and determine human wildlife conflict claim. It was also pleaded that the appellant was negligent by failing to take personal case while walking in an area visited by wild animals including Elephants, exposing himself to danger by provoking dangerous animals and pleads the doctrine of ‘Velenti non fit injuria’. 6. The respondent put it to the appellant that he would raise a preliminary objection on the ground of none compliance with the express provisions of Sections 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 117 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. That he will also raise objection based on Section 125 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act and Section 13(4) and 20(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act to urge the court to dismiss the suit for not being properly in this court. 7. The learned Magistrate entered Judgment in favour of the appellant but declined to award general damages. The appellant was dissatisfied and filed this appeal. The Appeal 8. The appellant filed this appeal based on the following grounds: 1. That the Honourable court erred in law and fact by purporting that the treatment notes, the P3 form and medical report produced in evidence by the appellant were of no relevance in the case. 2. That the Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact by concluding that no particulars of injuries were pleaded hence visiting the same on the appellant while general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities were pleaded in the plaint and there were documents relied upon to evidence the injuries suffered and general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities thus the P3 form, medical report and the treatment notes, the plaintiffs testimony and the testimony of PW2 who is a doctor who examined the plaintiff. 3. That the Honourable court erred in law and fact by disregarding the medical report, treatment notes and the P3 form hence coming to a wrong conclusion. 4. That the Honourable magistrate erred in law and fact by concluding that no particulars of injuries were pleaded hence visiting the same on the appellant while general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities were pleaded in the plaint and there were documents relied upon to evidence the injuries suffered and general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities thus the P3 form, medical report and the treatment notes, the plaintiffs testimony and the testimony of PW2 who is a doctor who examined the plaintiff in line with Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya. 5. That the honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact when she proceeded on wrong principles as she misapprehended the evidence in same material aspect and so arrived at a wrong conclusion. 6. That the Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact when she proceeded on wrong principles and wrong precedents with completely different facts from the appellants’ case. 7. That the Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to recognize that the P3 form and the medical report, treatment notes produced in evidence as documentary evidence to corroborate the injuries sustained by the appellant during the attack. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 2

page 2 of 11

8. That the Honourable Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to recognize that the evidence by the appellant and his witnesses being the doctor was all tested by the respondent in crossexamination and the appellant showed his scars and disabled leg to the honourable court. 9. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and facts by failing to properly scrutinize and evaluate the evidence tendered by the appellants and wrongly related the same to a wrong case law and thereby failed to arrive at a fair and reasonable assessment on the issue of quantum of general damages and compensation to the appellant. 10. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in disregarding the appellants testimony and evidence and the testimony of PW2 who is a doctor and which testimony corroborated the appellants claim and the appellants’ documentary evidence. 11. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law by apportioning general at Kshs. 0/= yet PW2 confirmed to court that the appellant sustained 30% permanent disability, the medical report and the appellants’ testimony to court corroborated the same. 12. That the learned trial magistrate erred both in law and fact by awarding Kshs. 0/= as general damages against the weight of the evidence before the court and was without any consideration to the submissions of the appellants. 13. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all the judicial nature of the case that was before her awarding general damages Kshs. 0/= merely because of the injuries sustained were note injuries and plead for general damages in the plaint more so after a proved fault or negligence on the part of the respondent. 14. That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in Kshs. 0/= as general damages by failing to take into consideration the documents and exhibits on record confirming that the appellant sustained serious injuries due to the attack. 15. That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to properly take into account the proper legal principles regarding quantum where a plaintiff produces documentary evidence to support his claim and calls a doctor to corroborate vis a vis where the plaintiff lacks capacity to sue on behalf of the estate of a deceased while considering the Judgment awards in cases of similar nature. 16. That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in awarding Kshs. 0/= as general damages as the same is excessively low and also failing to find that the appellant had proved the nature of injuries sustained which did not warrant such an award. 17. That the magistrate erred both in law and fact in making an award on quantum which is too low supported by irrelevant authorities, not guided by the doctrine of precedent, case law of similar facts. 18. That the magistrate erred both in law and fact in making an award on quantum which is too low and not guided y the laws of natural justice and or commensurate with the injuries suffered by the appellant. 19. That the award on general damages was against the weight of the evidence before the court and was without any consideration to the pleadings, the evidence before court and the submissions of the plaintiff/appellants counsel whilst failing to take into account the apportionment of 0% on general liability did not relate to injuries as per the medical reports produced in court. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 3

page 3 of 11

20. 9. That the magistrate erred both in law and fact in her general approach to general damages. The appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the Judgment be set aside and he be awarded general damages of Kshs. 3,000/= and the costs of the Appeal. The Plaintifl ’s Case 10. PW 1 Doctor Paul Wambugu testified that he is a doctor at Meru County attached at Githongo Level 4 Hospital. He testified that the plaintiff was admitted in the hospital on 12/7/2018 and had traumatic fracture of the right radius and ulna and the left tibia and fibular. That the injuries were after an attack by an elephant on 12/7/2018. He produced the discharge summary and the P3 form as exhibits. The patient was treated and given pain killers, blood builders and K-Nail inserted to fix the femur. He was also put on plaster. He assessed the degree of injury as grievous harm. He examined the appellant on 22/3/2019 and the patient had fully recovered. 11. PW2 Silas Mugambi, the appellant testified that he was attached by an elephant on 12/8/2018 while he was in the farm and sustained injuries. He told the court that he shone a torch and saw two elephants after which he found himself in hospital with injuries on the hand and leg. he was discharged on 20/07/2018 and proceeded to Kenya Wildlife Service to report. He was told to go and recover then report back later. He went back and was told that those dealing with the issue were away. He went and obtained a police abstract. 12. He further testified that he was attacked while in his shamba which was about a kilometer away from the park and blames the respondent for failing to take care of the animals and prevent human and wildlife conflict. In cross-examination he told the court that it was at 3.00am when he was attacked. He did not produce an OB extract nor did he c all any witnesses. Respondents Case 13. DW1 Mohamud Mandera is an employee of Kenya Wildlife Service based at Isiolo. He adopted his statement dated 11/4/2022 where he had stated that he is conversant with matters Human – Wildlife conflict and was competent to give evidence. He stated that the appellant did not make a formal report about the occurrence of the alleged incident. He stated further that the appellant was not entitled to compensation as he was negligent for failing to take reasonable measures to ensure his personal safety from any harm including wildlife. 14. That the alleged animal is unknown to the respondent and could as well have been a domestic animal in the case of the appellant. In cross-examination he told the court that the area where the incident took place has elephants and they do encroach on human space. He told the court that the appellant did not report although he did not produce the OB. It was his evidence that upon being served with the demand notice the matter was investigated by their staff one Gikonyo. He was however, not called as a witness nor was his report produced in evidence. The Judgment of the Trial Court 15. The learned magistrate held that the appellant had proved that he was attached by an elephant as he worked in his farm at 3.00am. the learned Magistrate held that the appellant bears some liability for working in the farm at night in an area that he knew had dangerous wildlife and had numerous incidents of human-wildlife conflict. It was further held that the respondent had the duty to control wildlife by dint of Section 3A of the Wildlife Act. That the respondent breached this duty and was therefore liable to compensate the appellant. He apportioned liability at the ration 80:20 against the respondent and in favour of the appellant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 4

page 4 of 11

16. On quantum of damages, the learned magistrate declined to award general damages as the particulars of the injuries were not pleaded in the plaint. The learned magistrate awarded special damages pleaded and proved at Kshs. 15,000/= The Appeal 17. The appellant was dissatisfied with the Judgment of the learned Magistrate and filed this appeal based on the above grounds as pleaded in the memorandum of Appeal. The appeal was disposed by way of written submission. Appellants Submissions 18. The appellant filed submissions dated 24/09/2023 and supplementary submissions dated 22/09/2024. It is submitted that the appeal is on quantum of damages only. It is submitted that the learned magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to award the quantum of damages despite the fact that they presented evidence to prove that the appellant had sustained 30% permanent disability. That the learned magistrate misapprehended the law by failing to award the general damages on the basis that the particulars of the injuries were not pleaded. It is submitted that the appellant tendered evidence by Pw1 in the discharge summary and the P3 Form to support the appellant’s claims that he suffered loss and damages. That the learned magistrate ignored the principles for awarding general damages. 19. In the supplementary submissions, the appellant submits that having pleaded that he sustained injuries and suffered loss and damage, he laid a basis for the plaintiff to proof the injuries sustained. He relies on William Baru -vs- KWS Civil Appeal No. 88/2022, Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Microsoft Corporation -vs- Mutsumi computer Garage Ltd & Another (2001) KLR 470, Hant Senth T/A Harit Sheth Advocates -vs- Shamascharamia Civil Application No. Nairobi 68/08 UR, Court of Appeal. 20. It is submitted that the testimony of PW1 and medical evidence adduced disclosed a cause of action against the respondent that warrants an award of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 21. The appellant relies on Section 25 of the Wildlife conservation and Management Act and submits that it is the Law dealing with fatalities and damages associated with wildlife and submits that the appellant proved that he was injured and should be compensated with damages amounting to Kshs. 3,000,000/=. Respondent’s Submission 22. The respondent submits that failure by the appellant to plead and particularize the injuries which he sustained was fatal to his claim. That pleadings are the bedrock upon which a suit is founded and it is the duty of a litigant to plead their case. He relies on the case of Nelson Ole Keiwa -vs- Victoria Limited & Another (2015) eKLR. That the appellant did not plead any basis of assessing general damages and he trial court was right in failing to award general damages. The respondent further relies on the case of Wareham t/a A.F Wareham & 2 Others Kenya Post Office Saving Bank (2004) 2 KLR 91 where the Court of Appeal held that: “ …we are impelled to state unequivocally that in our adversarial system of litigation cases are tried and determined on the basis of pleadings made and issues of facts or law pawed by the parties or court on the basis of those pleadings pursuant to the provisions of Civil Procedure Rules. And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the degree thereof is on a balance https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 5

page 5 of 11

of probabilities. In discharge of that burden the only evidence to be adduced is evidence of existence or none existence of the facts in issue or facts relevant to the issue. It follows from those principles that only evidence of facts pleaded is to be admitted and if the evidence does not support the facts pleaded, the party with the burden of proof should fail. It also follows that a court should not make any finding on unpleaded matters.” 23. That failing to plead and particularize injuries is not a mere technicality as it goes to the substantive issue in assessing general damages and therefore such failure cannot be cured by Article 159(2) d of the Constitution. 24. That parties are bound by their own pleadings and evidence that tends to be at variance with the pleadings is for rejection. See I.E.B.C & Another -vs- Stephene Mutinda Mule & 3 Others (2014) eKLR where Court of Appeal Supreme Court of Nigeria in Adeton Oladeji (NIG) -vs- Nigerial Breweries PLC SC where it was held that: “ …it is now trite principle in law that parties are bound by their pleadings and that any evidence led by any of the parties which does not support the averments in the pleadings, or put in another way, which is at variance with averments, goes to no issue and must be disregarded…” 25. It is submitted that Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act implores that once a person asserts the existence of a fact, then it is their burden to prove that the said facts exists and this burden is usually discharged by production of evidence. The law has thus provided a sequence that must be followed that is; asserting a fact then proving the same. That the appellant having not pleaded the particulars of injuries, then the medical report and P3 form were not supporting any pleaded facts and ought to have been disregarded, which the court rightly did. The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Analysis and Determination 26. I have considered the grounds of appeal, the proceedings before the trial court, the Judgment and the submissions. The issue for determination is whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by awarding general damages of Kshs. 0 merely because the injuries sustained were not particularized in the plaint. 27. This is a first appeal and the duty of the first appellate and the duty of the court is to re-evaluate as well as examine afresh the evidence and arrive at tis own conclusion having regard to the fact that I have not seen or heard the witnesses. This has been stated in various authorities of this court and the Court of Appeal. This has been stated in the case of Selle & Another -vs- Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & Others (1968) EA 123 it was held: “ …This court must reconsider the evidence evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it shall always bear in mind that it had neither seen or heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in that respect…” 28. This was also stated by the Court of Appeal in Capital Fish Kenya Limited -vs- The Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (2016) KECA 56 KLR where the Court stated: “ that their duty as a first appellate court is to re-evaluate as well as examine afresh the evidence and arrive at our own conclusion having regard to the fact that we have not seen or heard the witnesses.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 6

page 6 of 11

29. Thus, the first appellate court is not only required to consider whether the Judgment of the learned Magistrate has to be supported, the court must itself analyze the evidence, evaluate it and come up with its own independent finding based on the facts and the law. The Civil Procedure Act also places a duty on the first appellate court to consider the evidence afresh and make its independent finding. 30. Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: “ (1) (2) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate court shall have power— (a) to determine a case finally; (b) to remand a case; (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial; (d) to take additional evidence or to require the evidence to be taken; (e) to order a new trial. Subject as aforesaid, the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Act on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.” 31. Though the appellant had raised twenty (20) grounds appeal, he narrowed the grounds to two only and submitted on the two grounds. These are, that the learned magistrate erred by failing to award the quantum of general damages and holding that the P3 form and the discharge summary were not relevant as the particulars of injuries were not plead. 32. I will proceed to determine whether failure to plead the particulars of injuries on the plaint was fatal to the appellant’s case. The plaint shows that with regard to the claim for damages the appellant had pleaded at paragraph 3 of the plaint that he was attacked by an elephant and sustained serious injuries. he pleaded as follows at paragraph 5 of the plaint: “ In consequence of the afore-mentioned particulars of negligence by the defendant, the plaintiff sustained extreme loss and damage.” 33. At paragraph 10 prayer 2 he prayed for: QUOTE{startQuote “} General Damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.” It is clear from the pleadings that the appellant was claiming damages as a result of injuries sustained owing to the negligence by the respondent. Order 2 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows with regard to pleadings: ‘Subject to Sub-rule (2) every pleading shall contain the necessary particulars of any claim defence or other matter pleaded…” 34. Pleadings are the bedrock upon which a suit is founded and therefore a party has a duty to plead its case with the necessary particulars to enable the party sued to understand what the case is all about. This court and the court of Appeal has expressed the need for parties to plead their case with necessary particulars failure to which the suit will be held to be incompetent. See Nelson Ole Keiwua -vs- Victoria https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 7

page 7 of 11

Limited & Another Supra. Wareham t/a AF Wareham & 2 Others -vs Kenya Post Office Saving Bank (Supra). 35. It is also true that each case should be determined on its own circumstances and facts. A party who files a dispute in court places upon himself the undisputed legal burden to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. Section 107, 108 & 109 of the Evidence Act provides as follows: “ 107 108. Burden of proof. (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Incidence of burden. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 109. Proof of particular fact. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 36. The court of Appeal has stated that failure to plead particulars of injuries is not a reason to hold that there is no cause of action. In the case of Mungai -vs- Texcal House Service Station while allowing the appeal when the plaintiff had failed to plead particulars of injuries, stated as follows: “ She erred in saying that when particulars of injuries are not pleaded there is no cause of action shown.” “Further her conclusion that the plaint was incurably defective was erroneous.” 37. In the case the plaint did not contain particulars of injuries suffered by the first plaintiff. The Judge (High Court) held that no cause of action was disclosed in the main plaint and no quantum of damages could be assessed since injuries were not pleaded and medical evidence was not admitted. The court of Appeal held that the Judge erred in saying that when particulars of injuries are not pleaded there is no cause of action shown. 38. This is a binding decision and distinguishes the High Court decision in Nelso Ole Keiwua -vs- Victoria Limited & Another 2015 eKLR (Supra). I have considered the case of Wareham t/a AF Wareham & 2 Others -vs- Kenya Post Office Saving Bank. I find that the court stated that a party cannot adduce evidence on what is not pleaded. In the present case the appellant had pleaded that he suffered loss and damage as a result of the attack by the wild animal – elephant. He called evidence to prove the loss and damage that he suffered. 39. The appellant further pleaded that he was brutally attached and injured by an elephant and sustained serious injuries for which he holds the defendant liable. The claim was a personal injury claim. He did not give the particulars of injuries. the learned magistrate held that the appellant had proved liability against the respondent and went ahead and apportioned liability at the ration 80:20 as against the respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 8

page 8 of 11

40. The appellant had laid a basis for his claim and established liability against the respondent. The learned Magistrate held that in he absence of particulars of injuries in the plaint, the P3 form and medical report were not relevant. The learned Magistrate ruled that the P3 form and medical report were not relevant. The respondent had in their submissions stated damages should have been awarded under the common law and relied on the case of Catherine Kanyua Gatuura & Josphat Mwathi Kiuru (appealing as legal representative of the deceased one Peter Kiuru -vs- Kenya Wildlife Services (2020) eKLR, Justice R. K. Limo where he stated: “ The provisions of Order 2 Rule 4 of the Civil Rules made it mandatory for the appellant to plead their claim specifically which they did by implying in their pleadings that their claim was based on common law. I agree with the respondent that having specifically implied that their claim was under common law, they cannot turn back and say that the trial court should have given them an award that was not pleaded. The reason for that is simple. Pleadings must be specific and open in order to give the opposite side a fair chance to defend itself... That a party is always bound by its pleadings.” 41. The respondent submitted that the claim was brought under the common law. That particulars of injuries were not pleaded. There was no objection to the production of the P3 form, the medical report and the discharge summary. The rule on relevancy refers to the logical connection between evidence and the facts at issue while admissibility is the legal principle that determines if that evidence can be presented in court. That is to say that all admissible evidence must be relevant. This is determined based on the legal rules of evidence, statutes and procedural laws. The P3 form, medical report and the discharge summary were admitted in evidence, it means that they were relevant and there was no basis for rejecting them at the stage of Judgment. 42. The learned magistrate found that the respondent was liable. The appellant proved that he was attacked and suffered extreme loss and damage. The respondent upon being served with demand notice in the matter conducted their own investigations. This is captured in the evidence of DW1 at page 29 of the record of appeal. The results of the investigations were not disclosed in the court. The reasonable conclusion is that the report must have been adverse to them. The respondent testified that there was no formal complaint by the appellant. On being asked whether he had the OB, he answered in the negative. 43. The learned magistrate held that the appellant proved that he was attached by an Elephant as that was the immediate report made and the history he gave when he went for treatment as shown on the treatment notes. The appellant proved that he sustained injuries. the Constitution of Kenya 2010 at Article 159 urges court to do substantive justice other than decide cases on procedural technicalities. 44. I find that this is a matter where the learned magistrate should have assessed the quantum of damages as he found that the respondent was liable and prove of injuries was supported by documents produced in evidence without any objection at all. The awarding of damages is an exercise of judicial discretion which should be done judicially. The appellant proved this claim that he sustained injuries, discretion should have been exercised in his favour. The P3 form, medical report and discharge summary were admissible to prove the facts in issue. They were not excluded by any rules of evidence. The next step having found liability on the respondent would have been to assess the quantum of damages which he would have awarded had the appellant proved his claim. The award of damages for pain and suffering are awarded for the physical and mental distress both pre-trial and in future as a result of the injury. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 9

page 9 of 11

This includes the pain caused by the injury and the treatment intended to alienate it… See Halsbury Law of England Para 883, 4th Edition Vol. 12(1) page 348-883. “ Pain and suffering – Damages are awarded for the physical and mental distress caused to the plaintiff both pre-trial and in future as a result of the injury. This includes the pain caused by the injury itself, and the treatment intended to alienate it, the awareness of an embarrassment at the disability or disfigurement, or suffering caused by the anxiety and the plaintiff’s condition may deteriorate. In addition to damages for subjective pain and suffering sustained by a plaintiff by reason of his injuries damages are awarded for the objective losses thereby sustained by him this may include loss of ability to walk, loss of a limb or its use, the loss of congenial employment, the loss of pleasure in ones work, loss of marriage prospects and loss of sexual function. Damages under this head are awarded whether the plaintiff is are of it or not; damages are awarded for deprivation, rather than for awareness of it.” 45. The law requires that where there is a claim for general damages even if the court finds that a person is not entitled to damages, it has a duty to assess the general damages it would have awarded had the claim been proved. 46. On compensation for general damages for personal injury or death, or damage to property Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act provides as follows: 1. Where any person suffers any bodily injury or is killed by any wildlife listed under the Third Schedule, the person injured, or in the case of a deceased person, the personal representative or successor or assign, may launch a claim to the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee within the jurisdiction established under this Act. Compensation for personal injury or death or damage to property. 2. The County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee established under Section 18 shall verify a claim made under subsection (1) and upon verification, submit the claim to the Cabinet Secretary together with its recommendations thereon. 3. The Cabinet Secretary shall consider the recommendations made under subsection (2) and where appropriate, pay compensation to the claimant as follows – (a) in the case of death, five million shillings; (b) in the case of injury occasioning permanent disability, three million shillings; (c) in the case of any other injury, a maximum of two million shilling, depending on the extent of injury. 4. Any person who suffers loss or damage to crops, livestock or other property from wildlife specified in the Seventh Schedule hereof and subject to the rules made by the Cabinet Secretary, may submit a claim to the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee who shall verify the claim and make recommendations as appropriate and submit it to the service for due consideration. 5. The County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee shall review the claim and pay a compensation valued at the ruling market rates: provided that no compensation shall be paid where the owner of the livestock, crops or other property failed to take reasonable measures to protect such crops, livestock or property from damage by wildlife or his land use practices are in compatible with the ecosystem based management plan for the area. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 10

page 10 of 11

6. The person who is dissatisfied with the awards of compensation by either the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee or the service may within thirty days after being notified of the decision and award, file an appeal to the National Environment Tribunal and on a second appeal to the Environment and Land Court. 7. The Cabinet Secretary may, by notice in the Gazette, prescribe such regulations and guidelines as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.” The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act – The Act is the law that deals with fatalities and damages associated with Wildlife Conservation and provides a guide in determining awards for damages or injuries caused by wildlife. Under Section 25 of the Act (Supra) Kshs. 3,000,000/= is provided for injuries occasioning permanent disability and Kshs. 2,000,000/= depending on the extent of the injury. Courts have jurisdiction to awards damages as Section 25(1) of the Act does not specifically oust the jurisdiction of the court to entertain claims for compensation arising from injuries and fatalities caused by wild animals. The appellant testified that he reported to the respondent who did not take any action. The P3 form states that the degree of injury is grievous harm. The medical report did not give the degree of disablement. 47. The appellant sustained the following injuries: i. Fracture Radial Ulna ii. Fracture left Tibia Fibula with open wound. The degree of injury was assessed as grievous harm. Grievous Harm is a permanent injury. The P3 form states that, “ Grievous harm is any injury which amounts to main or endangers life or seriously or permanently injure health or which is likely so injure health or which extends to permanent disfigurement or to any permanent or serious injury to the external or internal organ.” 48. The appellant proved that he sustained injuries which were grievous harm, for such injury the claimant is entitled to Kshs. 300,000/=. For these reasons I find that the appeal has merits. I therefore order as follows: 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The appellant is awarded Kshs. 3,000,000/= being general damages for pain and suffering. 3. The apportionment of liability at 20:80 is upheld and therefore the award of Kshs. 3,000,000/= shall be less 20% appellants contribution. The appellant shall be entitled to Kshs. 2,400,000/=. I award the appellant the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the Lower Court. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KITUI THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. HON. LADY JUSTICE L. GITARI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19544/eng@2025-11-24 11

page 11 of 11