https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8218

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8218

The 1st Respondent had only a statutory administrative role and could not be compelled to pay compensation. The lawful obligation to pay rested on the 2nd Respondent, and the court could only compel payment of the assessed award, not the larger sum claimed. Since the claim had been assessed at Kshs. 194,197 and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 8218 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: REPUBLIC; 1st Respondent: KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE; 2nd Respondent: CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TOURISM & WILDLIFE; 3rd Respondent: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; Ex Parte Applicant: MERCY KAGWIRIA MWITHIGA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E017 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Mandamus / Judgment
Outcome
Partly allowed
Judges
["HM Nyaga"]
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Compensation for Wildlife Damage, Public Duty, Statutory Interpretation, Ripeness, Proper Parties, Appeal From Compensation Award
Source Language
en
Judicial Review Administrative Law Environmental Law Wildlife Law Mandamus Compensation for Wildlife Damage Public Duty Statutory Interpretation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REPUBLIC

Applicant

KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE

1st Respondent

CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TOURISM & WILDLIFE

2nd Respondent

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3rd Respondent

MERCY KAGWIRIA MWITHIGA

Ex Parte Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Mandamus / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether mandamus can issue to compel payment of wildlife compensation.
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly directed against the 1st Respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the claim was ripe and procedurally complete.

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Respondent had only a statutory administrative role and could not be compelled to pay compensation. The lawful obligation to pay rested on the 2nd Respondent, and the court could only compel payment of the assessed award, not the larger sum claimed. Since the claim had been assessed at Kshs. 194,197 and payment had not been made despite the long delay, mandamus properly issued against the 2nd Respondent only.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed

Orders

  • Orders of mandamus are issued against the 2nd Respondent to pay the ex parte applicant Ksh194,197/=.
  • Costs to the ex parte applicant to be borne by the 2nd Respondent.