https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8069

Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & 2 others; Bor & another ( Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of John Kipkemoi - Deceased) (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E007 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8069 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8069 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bomet Judicial Review Application E007 of 2025 JK Ng'arng'ar, J June 9, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE NATURE OF AN ORDER FOR MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT NO. 47 OF 2013, LAWS OF KENYA AND THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION REGULATIONS 2017 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT Between Republic Applicant and Kenya Wildlife Service 1st Respondent County Wildlife Conservation & Compensation Committee Narok 2nd Respondent Director, Ministerial Conservation Compensation Committee 3rd Respondent and Paul Cheruiyot Bor & Joseph Kiprotich Too ( Suing as the legal representative of the Estate Of John Kipkemoi - Deceased) Ex parte Applicant Judgment 1.The Ex-parte Applicants filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 28th November2025 which sought the following orders that: -I.The Honourable Court be pleased to grant an Order of judicial review by way of mandamus compelling the Respondents especially the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent to deliberate upon the Ex-parte Applicants’ claim lodged on 15th April 2022 within the next 30 days pursuant to Regulation 27 (1) (2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Compensation Regulations, 2017.II.The 1st Respondent do report to this Honourable Court its decision and/or deliberation under prayer I above on or before the expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of the order. 2.The Application was brought under the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and it was based on the grounds on the face of the Application and further by the Statutory statement dated 28th November 2025. The Ex-parte Applicants’ case. 3.The Ex-parte Applicants stated that John Kipkemoi (deceased) was attacked by a Buffalo on 12th April 2022 causing him fatal injuries. That the 1st Respondent issued them with compensation forms which they filled and returned to the 1st Respondent. The Ex-parte Applicants further stated that the 2nd Respondent was obligated to deliberate, verify and recommend compensation to them for the sum of Kshs 5,000,000/= within 30 days from the date the incident is reported as prescribed under Regulation 27(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Compensation Regulations 2017 and section 25 of the Wildlife and Conservation Management Act. 4.It was the Ex-parte Applicants’ case that the 1st Respondent was reluctant to deliberate, verify and recommend compensation. 5.Through its Further Affidavit dated 10th April 2026, the Ex-parte Applicants stated that by virtue of sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 16 of the Wildlife and Conservation Management Act, the 1st Respondent was fully mandated to set up and control the management of the affairs of the 2nd Respondent and was therefore a necessary party in these proceedings. The Ex-parte Applicants’ further stated that the 1st Respondent was mandated to set up the County Wildlife Conservation & Compensation Committee to verify compensation claims. 6.Through their written submissions dated 10th April 2026, the Ex-parte Applicants submitted that the 2nd Respondent was the 1st Respondent’s agent and acts on behalf of the 1st Respondent. The Ex-parte Applicants submitted that the 1st Respondent was clothed with powers over the 2nd Respondent and this court ought to compel it to deliberate on their compensation claim. They relied on Kenya Wildlife Service vs Joseph Musyoki Kalonzo (2017) eKLR et.al. 7.The Ex-parte Applicants submitted that they should not be concerned with the internal arrangements or mechanisms of the 1st Respondent in regard to compensation. Response 8.Through its Replying Affidavit dated 10th April 2026, the 1st Respondent stated that compensation was not within its mandate. That it was not mandated to sit, deliberate and recommend compensation. The 1st Respondent further stated that such a mandate lay with the Bomet County Wildlife Conservation and Committee and the Cabinet Secretary as established under section 25 (2) of the Wildlife and Conservation Management Act. 9.It was the 1st Respondent’s case that it was only a secretary to the County Wildlife Conservation Committee as established under section 18 of the Wildlife and Conservation Management Act. That the duty to constitute and direct the 2nd Respondent to sit and deliberate on claims arising from human wildlife conflicts fell under the statutory mandate of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. 10.The 1st Respondent stated that the Bomet County Wildlife Conservation Committee was yet to consider the Ex-parte Applicants’ claim for compensation. That the 1st Respondent as the secretary to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had performed its statutory duty in regards to the claim for compensation. 11.Through its written submissions dated 7th May 2026, the 1st Respondent submitted that an order compelling the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent to sit and deliberate the Ex-parte Applicants’ claim was unwarranted and could not issue against it as the same was mandated to the Cabinet Secretary. That the Ex-parte Applicants had not demonstrated that the 1st Respondent had the statutory obligation to convene the Committee to deliberate on compensation. It relied on Republic v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board & another Ex-parte Eng Judah Abekah [2015] KEHC 7078 (KLR) et.al. 12.It was the 1st Respondent’s submission that the prayer for an order of Mandamus compelling it to pay Kshs 5,000,000/= was premature as section 25 of the Wildlife and Conservation Management Act had laid down the procedure for compensation and who was responsible in paying such. It relied on sections 9 (1) and (2) of the Fair Administrative Act and Peter Muturi Njuguna v Kenya Wildlife Service [2017] KECA 42 (KLR) et.al. 13.The 1st Respondent submitted that an order of Mandamus could only issue to compel performance of a statutory duty owed to an Applicant. That it had demonstrated that it had no statutory duty to constitute or direct the 2nd Respondent to sit and deliberate the Ex-parte Applicants’ compensation claim. 14.At the time of writing this Judgement, the Attorney General had entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd Respondent. The Attorney General neither filed a response to the Application nor filed written submissions. 15.I have gone through the Notice of Motion Application dated 28th November 2025, the 1st Respondent’s Replying Affidavit dated 10th April 2026, the Ex-parte Applicants’ Further Affidavit and written submissions both dated 10th April 2026 and the 1st Respondent’s written submissions dated 7th May 2026. The only issue for my determination was whether the Ex-parte Applicants merited the prayer for an order of Mandamus against the Respondents. 16.In Republic -vs- Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Anor Ex-Parte Schon Noorani & Another [2018] KEHC 9433 (KLR), the court stated: -“Mandamus is an equitable remedy that serves to compel a public authority to perform its public legal duty and it is a remedy that controls procedural delays. The test for mandamus is set out in Apotex Inc. vs. Canada (Attorney General),[23] and, was also discussed in Dragan vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).[24] The eight factors that must be present for the writ to issue are: -(i)There must be a public legal duty to act;(ii)The duty must be owed to the Applicants;(iii)There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty, meaning that:a.The Applicants have satisfied all conditions precedent; andb.There must have been:i.A prior demand for performance;ii.A reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless there was outright refusal; andiii.An express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay;iv.No other adequate remedy is available to the Applicants;v.The Order sought must be of some practical value or effect;vi.There is no equitable bar to the relief sought;vii.On a balance of convenience, mandamus should lie.” 17.Further, in Republic vs. Nairobi City County Government Ex parte Crown Motors Group Limited [2021] KEHC 889 (KLR), the Court held: -An order of mandamus will therefore issue when an officer or an authority by compulsion of law or statute is required to perform a duty, and that duty, despite demand in writing, has not been performed…….” 18.In Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & another; Ndiso (Suing as the Legal Representative and Administrator of The Estate of Kadzo Kombe Nzai) (Ex parte Applicant) [2026] KEHC 7332 (KLR), the court held: -“It is trite that, before grant of the order of mandamus, the court has to be convinced that the applicant has done his part in terms of supplying the requisite documents and demanding for payment….” 19.In this particular case, the Ex-parte Applicants stated that they launched a claim with the 2nd Respondent with an aim of being compensated for the death of John Kipkemoi who was attacked by a Buffalo and suffered fatal injuries. They further stated that they filled the requisite compensation forms but the 1st Respondent had been reluctant to sit, deliberate and recommend a compensation package. On the other hand, the 1st Respondent stated that it was not responsible for directing the 2nd Respondent to sit, deliberate and recommend a compensation package, that it was the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary in charge of Tourism and Wildlife. 20.It is an undisputed fact that the Community Wildlife Conservation Committees (in this case, the 2nd Respondent) as per section 19 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act were responsible for reviewing and recommending compensation packages. The only point of divergence was whether the 1st Respondent was liable for paying compensation if recommended. 21.On the issue on whom between the 1st Respondent and the Cabinet Secretary for Tourism and Wildlife was responsible for paying a compensation package, the Court of Appeal in Kenya Wildlife Service v Joseph Musyoki Kalonzo [2017] KECA 234 (KLR) held: -“The appellant admits the duty to manage and conserve wildlife. That duty comes with the attendant responsibility to shoulder any claims of loss or damage caused by the breach of that duty. The law on this point as succinctly pronounced in Joseph Boru Ngera & Another vs Kenya Wildlife Service vs Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited [2014] eKLR among others is still good law on this point. The cabinet secretary referred to in the Act pays the money on behalf of the appellant. Neither the Court nor the parties should concern themselves with the internal arrangements of the appellant as to whether it is the CEO of the appellant or the cabinet secretary who should disburse the money.If there is any conflict of responsibilities or performance of duty between the CEO and the cabinet secretary, that is upon the two to sort out, but that should not be used to deny a party compensation duly owed to it.” 22.A similar position was held in the case of Republic vs Kenya Wildlife Service & 3 Others (Judicial review E006 of 2004) (2025) KEHC 14189 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Ruling) where the court stated that: -“Secondly; the 1st Respondent’s contention that the statutory obligation to settle the exparte Applicant’s claim lay with the cabinet secretary for Tourism and Wildlife also holds no water, and is an issue which has been settled by the court of appeal…….” 23.Further, in Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & another; Ndiso (supra), the court held: -“Therefore, the mere fact that duties are split in terms of who manages and processes compensation claims and who finally pays the compensation under Sections 18 and 25 of the parent Act, they owe the claimant his or rightful duty of compensation jointly……” 24.It was an undisputed fact that the deceased died as a result of an attack by a Buffalo. Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act provides: -(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.(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. 25.I have looked at the pleadings and I have noted that the Ex-parte Applicants proved that they reported an filed the compensation forms with the 1st Respondent. The same were attached as part of their pleadings. There was no objection as to the veracity of the attack and as stated earlier, the only dispute raised by the 1st Respondent was on the statutory mandate on who was to pay the compensation package. 26.Flowing from the above, I am satisfied that the Respondents, upon receipt of a reported death arising out of human wildlife conflict, had a duty under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act to review the claim and recommend compensation. The Respondents have failed to perform this duty. This court has no choice but to grant a mandamus order to enforce performance of that public duty. 27.In the end, a mandamus order be and is hereby granted compelling the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent to deliberate and review upon the Ex-parte Applicants’ claim lodged on 15th April 2022 within the next 30 days and present a report on the same to this court after the expiry of the 30 days. JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.…………………………………….HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’ARJUDGEJudgement delivered in the presence of:Siele/Susan (Court Assistants).Diana Sigei for the 1st RespondentAmule for Ex parte Applicant