https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8275

Republic v County Wildlife Compensation Committee – Meru & 2 others; M’ithili & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Timothy Koome Stephen - Deceased) (Judicial Review E022 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8275 (KLR) (8 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8275 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Judicial Review E022 of 2025 HM Nyaga, J June 8, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and County Wildlife Compensation Committee – Meru 1st Respondent Cabinet Secretary Ministry Of Tourism And Wildlife 2nd Respondent Kenya Wildlife Service 3rd Respondent and Stephen Laiboni M’ithili Ex parte Applicant Doreen Kanana Ex parte Applicant Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Timothy Koome Stephen - Deceased Judgment 1.By an application dated 24th April, 2025, the ex-parte applicant sought the following orders:-1.An order of mandamus directed to the Respondents to compel the Respondents to settle the claim as per the provisions of section 25 rule 3(a) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No 47 of 2013 plus costs and interest thereon calculated at court rates from the date of ruling.2.Cost of this application be provided for. 2.The application is supported by the grounds set out on its face and the affidavit of the ex-parte applicant. 3.In a nutshell, the ex-parte applicant’s case is that on 9th February 2024 the deceased was attacked and fatally injured by an elephant whilst at Kaongo Sub-location, Buuri Location as a result of the 3rd Respondent's negligence and breach of statutory duty as governed by section 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act no 47 of 2013. That the ex-parte applicant reported the matter at Ntangilia Police Post under O.B number 04/09/02/2024. That the ex-parte applicants further reported the incident to the 3rd Respondent's offices and filled out the requisite claim attaching all required supporting documents. That the 3 Respondent undertook to facilitate the compensation process to the ex-parte applicant for the loss and damage suffered by the deceased's estate. That the ex-parte applicants have since on various occasions made follow up on the compensation process but the respondents have neglected failed refused and or ignored to finalize the compensation. That the ex-parte applicants have now waited for over an year and the respondents continue to unjustifiably delay the compensation without any plausible explanation. That the Respondents’ are public bodies established under statute with clear obligations set out whenever an incident as this occurs. That the Respondents have breached their statutory duty to the detriment of the estate of the deceased and his beneficiaries. 4.The 1st and 2nd respondents opposed the application through ground of opposition dated 10th October 2025. The following grounds have been set out:a.That the application has not met the threshold for the grant of the orders sought.b.That the application is misdirected since the 1st respondent has neither failed nor refused to deliberate, verify and/or recommend the compensation of the applicant since the strict procedures stipulated in the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and the Wildlife conservation and Management (Compensation) Regulations, 2017 are ongoing.c.That as it stands, the exparte applicant has no claim pending before the County Compensation committee and her claim has never been deliberated upon by the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee.d.That it is trite law that for a court to grant an order for Mandamus, the applicant must prove that there is an express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay by the public body. The 1st respondent has not refused and/or delayed in complying with the law in the instant matter.e.That the application fails to demonstrate any specific breach of statutory duty or wrongdoing on the part of the 1st respondent and there is no evidence establishing neglect, refusal or failure to perform any duty as required by the law.f.That the 1st respondent has not abdicated their statutory roles as alleged by the applicant and no evidence has been adduced to support those wild allegations.g.That this application is misadvised as it seeks to circumvent the prescribed legal and administrative mechanisms expressly established by the law to handle allegations of crop damage by wildlife and the resultant compensation if the claim is proved as required by the law.h.That the application is misconceived and full of untrue allegations which are not supported by any evidence and therefore should be dismissed forthwith. 5.The 3rd respondent opposed the application vide a replying affidavit sworn by Gedion Mutai, its legal officer. 6.He deponed that it is not the duty of the 3rd Respondent and is not the statutory mandate compensate the Applicant’s claim. That the Meru County Wildlife Conservation Committee as established under section 18 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 (WCMA) is mandated to review and recommend payment of compensation on claims resulting from loss or damage caused by wildlife under sections 19(1) and 25(2) of the WCMA. That the 3rd Respondent is only the secretary to the County Wildlife Conservation Committee established under Section 18 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. That the 3rd Respondent has duly performed their statutory duty as secretary fully as regards the Applicant’s claim for compensation by receiving the Claimant’s claim form. That the Meru County Wildlife Conservation Committee considered the Applicant’s claim for compensation as per Section 19(1) and 25(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and the claimant was approved for an award Kshs. 5,000,000/=. That the claim was forwarded to the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife for payment as per Section (25(2) of the WMCA. That the responsibility to compensate for human wildlife conflict matters lies with the Cabinet Secretary Tourism and Wildlife under the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. That the 3rd Respondent is the go between of the Applicant and the Cabinet Secretary Tourism and Wildlife. That the 3rd Respondent only communicates the transmission of compensation funds provided by the Cabinet Secretary Tourism and Wildlife and this process in the case of the Applicant herein is yet to begin. That the proper party to compel to make the payment as approved is the Cabinet Secretary Tourism and Wildlife 7.Parties filed submissions which I have considered. I find that the following issues arise for determination:a.The nature of an order of mandamus,b.Whether the application offends the determine of ripeness,c.Whether the ex-parte applicant is entitled to the orders sought. 8.An order of mandamus is a writ issued by this court to compel the performance of a statutory duty owed to an applicant. In the case of Kenya National Examination Council v Republic, Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji & 9 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996 the purpose and scope of an order of mandamus was described as as follows:“The next issue we must deal with is this: What is the scope and efficacy of an order of mandamus? Once again we turn to HALSBURY’S LAW OF ENGLAND, 4th Edition Volume 1 at page 111 FROM PARAGRAPH 89. That learned treatise says:-“The order of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature, and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, directed to any person, corporation or inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. Its purpose is to remedy the defects of justice and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual.”At paragraph 90 headed “the mandate” it is stated:“The order must command no more than the party against whom the application is made is legally bound to perform. Where a general duty is imposed, a mandamus cannot require it to be done at once. Where a statute, which imposes a duty leaves discretion as to the mode of performing the duty in the hands of the party on whom the obligation is laid, a mandamus cannot command the duty in question to be carried out in a specific way.”What do these principles mean? They mean that an order of mandamus will compel the performance of a public duty which is imposed on a person or body of persons by a statute and where that person or body of persons has failed to perform the duty to the detriment of a party who has a legal right to expect the duty to be performed.” 9.The order of mandamus is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 165(6) which states as follows:The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. 10.The Fair Administrative Action Act at section 11 provides as follows:Orders in proceedings for judicial review(1)In proceedings for judicial review under section 8 (1), the court may grant any order that is just and equitable, including an order–….(f)compelling the performance by an administrator of a public duty owed in law and in respect of which the applicant has a legally enforceable right; 11.Section 106 (2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act provides as follows:Any person who has reason to believe that the provisions of this Act have been, are being, or are about to be violated, may petition the High Court for—a.a declaration that the provisions of this Act are being, have been, or are about to be contravened;b.an injunction restraining any specified person from carrying out the contravention;(c)the writ of mandamus against an officer or a person who has failed to perform a duty imposed by or under this Act; or any remedy at law or equity for preventing or enforcing the provisions of this Act. 12.From the foregoing, provisions of the law, it is abundantly clear that this court has the requisite jurisdiction, where appropriate, to issue a writ of mandamus compelling any person or body to undertake an act that it is by law required to so undertake. This has been confirmed in Republic vs Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board (supra) where it was held as follows:“From the cited decisions, it is apparent that an order of mandamus will issue to compel the performance of a statutory duty owed to an applicant.” 13.For the court to issue an order of mandamus, it has to be satisfied that the person to whom the writ is directed has a statutory duty to undertake certain action and has failed or neglected to undertake such action. In the same case, it was held as follows:“Therefore, the fulcrum of an order of mandamus is that a statutory duty must be owed to an applicant and the public officer or public body, after being asked to perform the duty, has refused or failed to discharge that duty and there is no other adequate remedy. In matters involving exercise of judgement and discretion the public officer or public agency can only be directed to take action; it cannot directed in the manner or the particular way the discretion is to be exercised.” 14.From the affidavit by the 3rd respondent, it is apparent that the ex parte applicant’s claim has already been deliberated on by the 1st respondent which is by the body mandated to do so. The ex parte applicant’s claim has been assessed at Ksh. 5,000,000/=. It was not clear if that amount has been paid. 15.I agree with the 3rd respondent that it is the 1st respondent which has the mandate to assess the claim and recommend payment. This has already happened, meaning that it is the 2nd respondent which now has a mandate to make any payment, as set out under the Act. 16.This court’s power is thus to compel the 2nd respondent to make payment. 17.Therefore, after considering the application. I grant the following orders:- 18.Orders of mandamus against the 2nd respondent to pay the ex parte applicant Ksh, 5,000,000/= assessed by the CWCC Meru County. 19.Costs to the ex parte applicant. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.H.M. NYAGAJUDGE