https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10082

Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & 2 others; Eruwan (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10082 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10082 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Isiolo Judicial Review Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E001 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 Eruwan Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.The Ex-parte Applicant herein seeks orders by way of a Notice of Motion dated 2nd March 2026 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 its 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.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 regulation therein.d.That the 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to comply by paying the Ex-parte Applicant the said approved sum within 14 days from the date of issuance of the order of Mandamus.e.Costs of and incidental to the application be provided for.f.Such further and other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to grant. The Applicant’s Case 2.It is the Applicant’s case that on 2nd March 2023, while grazing his livestock at Attan area of Ngaremara within Isiolo County, he was savagely attacked by a stray leopard and sustained serious injuries. He was admitted to Isiolo County Referral Hospital on the same day and discharged on 27th March 2023 after undergoing treatment, including a tracheostomy for a penetrating neck injury. 3.The Applicant reported the incident to the Isiolo Police Station under OB No. 67/02/03/2023 and to the Area Chief of Aregae Sub-location. He subsequently visited the 1st Respondent’s offices, where he was issued with compensation forms which he filled and returned on 27th April 2023. 4.He states that pursuant to Regulation 27(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Compensation Regulations 2017, the 2nd Respondent is obligated to deliberate, verify and recommend compensation for the Applicant within 30 days. He alleges that the 1st Respondent has been reluctant and uncooperative in processing his claim despite being aware of the incident, leaving him and his family destitute. The 1st Respondent’s Case 5.The 1st Respondent’s filed a replying Affidavit sworn on 7th May, 2026, by Mohamud Madera, the Assistant Director of the 1st Respondent’s Isiolo Station in which the Respondent’s states that the claim for compensation lodged by the Ex-parte Applicant has already been deliberated upon by the 2nd Respondent, and has recommended an award of Kshs. 750,000/-. 6.The Respondent further states that the settlement of this claim is currently pending before the Cabinet Secretary pursuant to the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. 7.The Respondent deposes that the Applicant is not entitled to the sum of Kshs. 3,000,000/- as sought, and argues that for this Court to award such a sum would amount to an illegal takeover of the administrative functions of the 2nd Respondent. 8.The Respondent deposed that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to compel the 1st Respondent to pay a sum that has not been awarded by the statutory body mandated to do so. 9.In view of the foregoing, the Respondent contends that the present application has been overtaken by events, lacks merit, and ought to be dismissed with costs. 10.Neither party filed submissions. Analysis and determination 11.I have considered the rival pleadings of the parties. The issues that arise for determination are:a.Whether an order of mandamus should issue.b.Whether an order for compensation of a specific sum should be made. Whether an order of mandamus should issue. 14.Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than with the merits of the decision itself. The role of the Court is to ensure that a public body entrusted with statutory power exercises that power lawfully, fairly, reasonably and within the confines of the Constitution and the enabling statute. 15.The Applicant's case is founded on the provisions of Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, No. 47 of 2013 and the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Compensation Scheme) Regulations, 2017. Under the statutory framework, claims arising from death, injury or damage caused by wildlife are first received and considered by the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee, which verifies and recommends compensation before forwarding the recommendation to the Cabinet Secretary for approval and payment in accordance with the Act. 16.The Applicant contends that despite lodging his claim in April 2023, the Respondents failed to process the same within the statutory timelines, thereby necessitating the present proceedings. 17.However, the replying affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent demonstrates that subsequent to the filing of the claim, the 2nd Respondent considered the Applicant's claim and recommended compensation in the sum of Kshs. 750,000/=. The Respondent further deposes that the recommendation has since been forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary for action pursuant to Section 25(3) of the Act. These depositions have not been controverted by the Applicant. 18.It therefore emerges that the very statutory duty which the Applicant sought to compel the Respondents to perform—namely deliberation and recommendation of the claim—has already been discharged. Courts do not issue orders in vain or in respect of matters that have already been overtaken by events. 19.I therefore find that prayer (a) of the Motion has been overtaken by events. Whether an order for compensation of a specific sum should be made. 14.The Applicant further seeks an order compelling the Respondents to pay him Kshs. 3,000,000/= as compensation. 15.It is not the function of the Court, in judicial review proceedings, to substitute its own decision for that of the body upon which Parliament has conferred the statutory mandate. This principle was authoritatively stated by the Court of Appeal in Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic; Umoja Consultants Ltd (Interested Party) [2002] KECA 8 (KLR),where the Court held that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. 16.First, the statutory mandate of assessing and determining the appropriate amount of compensation has been expressly vested by Parliament in the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee and the Cabinet Secretary under Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The Court cannot arrogate unto itself that statutory function. 21.Secondly, judicial review is not concerned with determining the correctness or adequacy of the amount awarded. To do so would require the Court to evaluate evidence relating to the extent of injuries, applicable statutory schedules and the merits of the administrative decision, matters that fall outside the traditional scope of judicial review. 21.Likewise, in Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd (supra), the Court emphasized that judicial review is not an appeal against the merits of an administrative decision. 21.The Respondent has exhibited evidence that the Committee assessed the Applicant's claim and recommended compensation of Kshs. 750,000/=. Whether that amount is adequate or ought to have been higher is a matter that does not fall for determination in these judicial review proceedings. The Court lacks jurisdiction to substitute its own assessment for that of the statutory body. 21.Consequently, I find no legal basis upon which this Court can compel payment of Kshs. 3,000,000/=, or any other amount different from that determined through the statutory process. 21.In conclusion it is the finding of this court that prayer 1 of the Application has been overtaken by events. On the 2nd prayer, the high court has no jurisdiction to entertain it 28.Thus in the end, on account of mootness and want of jurisdiction , the Application herein is hereby struck off. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ISIOLO, THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.S. CHIRCHIRJUDGEIn the presence of :Barako Huka- Court AssistantMr. Kitheka for the ApplicantMr. Mutai for the 1st Respondent.