[2011] KEHC 4310 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 4310 (KLR)

The court found that Kenya Wildlife Services, by virtue of its statutory mandate under the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, is responsible for protecting crops from destruction by wildlife. The evidence established that wild animals invaded the plaintiff's farm, causing significant loss, and that the defendant failed to take adequate measures to prevent this, despite being alerted. Although statutory compensation for crop loss was removed by legislative amendment, the court held that the plaintiff could still recover damages under common law. The plaintiff proved special damages for the loss of wheat and barley crops to the satisfaction of the court, but failed to prove other...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 4310 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited; Defendant: Kenya Wildlife Services
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Case Number
Civil Case 256 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Statutory Duty of Care, Liability for Wildlife Damage, Nuisance, Negligence, Compensation for Crop Loss
Source Language
English
Tort Law Land and Property Statutory Duty of Care Liability for Wildlife Damage Nuisance Negligence Compensation for Crop Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited

Plaintiff

Kenya Wildlife Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the destruction of the plaintiff's crops by wild animals.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has proved the nature and extent of the loss suffered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Kenya Wildlife Services, by virtue of its statutory mandate under the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, is responsible for protecting crops from destruction by wildlife. The evidence established that wild animals invaded the plaintiff's farm, causing significant loss, and that the defendant failed to take adequate measures to prevent this, despite being alerted. Although statutory compensation for crop loss was removed by legislative amendment, the court held that the plaintiff could still recover damages under common law. The plaintiff proved special damages for the loss of wheat and barley crops to the satisfaction of the court, but failed to prove other...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of Kshs.31,500,000.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs and interest.