https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10091

Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & 2 others; Atelej alias Atelei Angole (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10091 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10091 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Isiolo Judicial Review Judicial Review Application E002 of 2026 SC Chirchir, J July 9, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and Kenya Wildlife Service 1st Respondent County Wildlife Conservation & Compensation Committee, Isiolo 2nd Respondent The Cabinet Secretary Ministry Of Tourism And Wildlife 3rd Respondent and Stephen Atelej alias Atelei Angole Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.The ex-parte Applicant herein seeks orders as follows:a.That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Order of Judicial Review by way of Mandamus compelling the Respondents and specifically the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent (CMCC) to deliberate upon the Ex-Parte’s claim lodged on 2nd March, 2023 within the next 30 days pursuant to Regulation 27(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Compensation Regulations 2017.b.That the 1st Respondent do report to this Honourable Court it’s decision and/or deliberation under Prayer (1) above on or before the Expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of this Order.c.That an Order of Mandamus be issued to compel the Respondents and specifically the 1st Respondent to pay the Ex-parte Applicant the sum of Kshs. 3,000,000/= recommended, verified by the 2nd Respondent and approved by the 3rd Respondent as Compensation under Regulation 27(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Compensation) Regulations, 2017 and further pursuant to Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No. 47 of 2013 and the regulations therein.d.That the 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to comply by paying the Ex-parte Applicant the said approved sum of Kshs. 3,000,000/= within 14 days from the date of issuance of the order of mandamus.e.Cost of this Application be provided for.f.Such further and other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to grant. 2.The Notice of Motion was filed pursuant to leave granted by this Court on the 26th day of February, 2026. The Applicant’s Case 3.It is the Applicant’s case that he was attacked by a stray leopard on 2nd March, 2023 while grazing his livestock at Attana area of Ngaremara, within Isiolo County and sustained serious injuries. He was admitted to Isiolo County Referral Hospital where he was treated for deep cut wounds on the head, injuries near the right eye, and a fractured right arm. 4.The Applicant reported the occurrence to the Area Chief and the Isiolo Police Station vide OB No. 67/02/03/2023, and further to KWS vide OB No. 05/03/03/2023. He filled out the compensation forms issued by the 1st Respondent and returned them for processing. 5.The Applicant states that pursuant to Regulation 27(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Compensation Regulations 2017, the 2nd Respondent is obligated to verify and recommend compensation for the applicant within 30 days. He contends that the 1st Respondent has been reluctant and uncooperative in compelling the 2nd Respondent to deliberate on his claim for Kshs. 3,000,000/=, despite several visits to their offices. He therefore seeks an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to perform their statutory duty and effect payment. The 1st Respondent’s Case 6.The 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mohamud Madera, the Assistant Director of the 1st Respondent’s Isiolo Station. It is the Respondent’s case that the claim for compensation lodged by the applicant has already been deliberated upon by the 2nd Respondent, and an award of Kshs. 650,000/- has been recommended. 7.The Respondent states that the claim is currently pending settlement by the Cabinet Secretary pursuant to the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. 8.The Respondent further contends that the applicant is not entitled to the sum of Kshs. 3,000,000/- as sought in the application. They argue that for this court to award such a sum would amount to the court usurping the administrative functions of the 2nd Respondent. Further, the Respondent asserts that this court lacks the jurisdiction to compel the 1st Respondent to pay a specific amount that has not been awarded by the 2nd Respondent. 9.The 1st Respondent maintains that it has fully executed its statutory duty and has in no way breached its obligations to the detriment of the applicant. Consequently, the Respondent’s position is that the application has been overtaken by events, lacks merit, and should be dismissed with costs. 10.Neither party filed their submissions. Analysis and Determination 11.I have carefully considered the Notice of Motion, the statutory statement, the verifying affidavit together with the annexures thereto, the Replying Affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent and the applicable law. Although the parties did not file written submissions, the court is nonetheless under a duty to determine the issues arising from the pleadings and evidence on record. 12.In my view, the issues arise for determination are :a.Whether the Respondents have discharged their statutory mandate under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Compensation) Regulations, 2017.b.Whether this Court can compel payment of Kshs. 3,000,000/= as sought. Whether the Respondents have discharged their statutory mandate 13.The remedy sought by the Applicant is principally an order of mandamus. The principles governing the grant of that remedy are now well settled. Mandamus issues to compel the performance of a public duty imposed by statute where the public authority has failed or refused to perform that duty. It neither creates a duty nor directs the manner in which discretion should be exercised where the statute has vested discretion in the public body. 14.In Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that an order of mandamus compels the performance of a public duty imposed by law where the duty remains unperformed, but it cannot command the performance of that duty in a particular manner where discretion exists. 15.Under Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and Regulation 27 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Compensation) Regulations, 2017, compensation claims arising from human-wildlife conflict are processed through a statutory framework. The County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee is mandated to receive, verify and deliberate upon claims before making recommendations in accordance with the law. The ultimate approval and payment of compensation is undertaken through the statutory process established under the Act. 16.The Applicant contends that despite lodging his claim in March 2023, the Respondents failed to deliberate upon the same, thereby necessitating intervention by this Court. 17.However, the Replying Affidavit sworn on behalf of the 1st Respondent demonstrates that the Applicant's claim was indeed considered by the 2nd Respondent and an award of Kshs. 650,000/= recommended. The Respondent further states that the recommendation has since been forwarded for settlement in accordance with Section 25(3) of the Act. The Applicant has not controverted these averments by filing a further affidavit. Consequently, the evidence that the claim has already been processed remains unchallenged. 18.Since the Respondents have demonstrated that the Applicant's claim has already been deliberated upon and a recommendation made, the principal complaint that the statutory duty had not been performed no longer subsists. To that extent, the prayer seeking to compel deliberation has been overtaken by events. Whether this Court can compel payment of Kshs. 3,000,000/= 27.The Applicant invites the Court to compel the Respondents to pay Kshs. 3,000,000/=. 28.The assessment of compensation payable under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act is a statutory function vested in the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee and the relevant authorities established under the Act. This Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the statutory body unless the decision-making process is shown to have been tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. ( see In Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] 2 EA 300,). Thus, an order to compel payment of a particular amount can not issue in a judicial review Application. 33.Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings to assess and award compensation of Kshs. 3,000,000/= even if the assessment and recommendation had not been done. 34.The Court finds that the Respondents have demonstrated that the Applicant's claim has already been considered and a recommendation made under the statutory framework. Consequently, the prayer seeking to compel deliberation has been overtaken by events. Further the court lacks jurisdiction to make an order for payment of a specific Amount 35.Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, the Application herein is hereby struck off. 36.Each party to meet their own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ISIOLO, THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.S. CHIRCHIRJUDGE.In the presence of :Barako Huka- Court AssistantMr. Kitheka for the ApplicantMr. Mutai for the 1st Respondent.