Before this Court is the Ex Parte Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2025 seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Respondents to constitute, sit and deliberate on the application and compensate the Ex-Parte Applicant within 60 days in accordance with Section 27 of the Wildile Conservation and Management (Compensation) Regulations 2017. The Applicant also sought for costs of the application.
The claim is supported by the grounds in the statutory statement dated 12th March, 2025 and the Verifying Affidavit of Francis Mohamed Mukama sworn on 14th March, 2025 respectively.
The Ex-Parte Applicant averred that on 27th September, 2021 he was viciously attacked by a crocodile while fishing within Muhuru Bay occasioning grievous injuries as a result of the 1st Respondent’s negligence and breach of statutory duty as governed by the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No. 47 of 2013.
Following the incident, a report was made at Muhuru Bay Police Station vide OB No. 05/27/09/21. That the Ex-Parte Applicant thereafter applied for compensation by filling claim forms provided by the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent’s Officers went to take the details and promised to compensate the ex-parte Applicant for the injuries caused in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013.
That the Ex-Parte Applicant has on various occasions made a follow up on the compensation but the Respondents took him in circles. That he waited for 4 years and the Respondent is yet to consider the compensation. That the Respondent has continued to unjustifiably delay the compensation without plausible explanation. That the application is meritorious and has been brought without unreasonable delay. The Ex-Parte Applicant is apprehensive thayt unless the court intervenes and compel the Respondent to act on their decision and settle the claim, the Respondent will continue to ignore the Applicant’s demanfd for compensation and thus corrode and erode the confidence of the Applicant and the general public in the efficiency of the administrative process of Kenya.
1. The Respondents filed a response through Replying Affidavit sworn by Derrick Karinga on 22nd October, 2025 in which it was deponed as follows:-
2. THAT I am the 1st Respondent’s Legal Officer, fully conversant with the facts of this case, thus competent to make this Affidavit.
3. THAT I have read and understood the Notice of Motion Application dated 18th March, 2025, the Statutory Statement, and the verifying affidavit of Francis Mohamed Mukama sworn on 14th March 2025 and the Annexures thereto and in response wish to state as follows.
4. THAT the Application is premature, fatally defective and bad in law to the extent that it seeks to compel the 1st Respondent to do that which is not within the 1st Respondent’s mandate.
5. THAT the 1st Respondent is established under Section 6 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and its functions provided for under section 7 of the Act.
6. THAT it is not the duty of the 1st Respondent under section 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and it is not within the Respondent’s statutory mandate to compensate the ex parte Applicant.
7. THAT the 2nd Respondent, the County Wildlife Conservation Committee of
Migori 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.
8. THAT the 1st Respondent is only the secretary to the County Wildlife Conservation Committee established under Section 18 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013.
9. THAT the Migori County Wildlife Conservation Committee considered the Applicant’s claim for compensation and recommended the same for compensation to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife in accordance with section 25(2) of the WCMA.
10. THAT the Cabinet Secretary deferred the claim and returned the same to the Service for clarification, since there was a difference between the date of the incident in the medical report attached to the claim and that in all the other documents.
11. THAT upon receipt of the claim form and supporting documents, the 1st Respondent’s Homa Bay station officers informed the ex parte Applicant to attend their offices so as to offer the required clarification, through the availed mobile contact of the next of kin.
12. THAT the ex parte Applicant has never attended the 1st Respondent’s office despite numerous requests to do so.
13. THAT the Respondents have discharged their mandate and it is the ex parte Applicant who has failed to move with haste to ensure the necessary clarifications are provided and the claim is duly processed.
14. THAT the ex parte Applicant is thus knowingly misrepresenting to this Honourable Court that his claim is yet to be considered by the Respondents.
15. THAT as regards compensation, section 25(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act places the role of payment of compensation squarely on the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife.
16. THAT as such, this Honourable Court cannot issue any orders contrary to the express provisions of statute as this would amount to an illegality.
17. THAT from the foregoing, it is clear that the 1st Respondent duly performed their statutory duty under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the Applicant’s allegations remain spurious and the suit herein is unmerited, an abuse of the court process and the reliefs sought are unwarranted.
18. THAT the Application is not merited as against the 1st Respondent and should be dismissed with costs.
19. THAT what is deponed to herein is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief save where otherwise stated sources whereof have been disclosed.
Directions were taken that the application be heard by way of written submissions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
The Applicant’s Counsel filed submissions dated 16th February, 2026 and the Respondents submissions are dated 8th June 2026.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions of the parties, the following issues arise for determination:
i. Whether an order of mandamus should issue.
ii. Who bears the costs of the application.
Judicial review is concerned with the legality of decision-making processes and the performance of public duties by public bodies. The law governing the issuance of an order of mandamus is now settled. Mandamus is a public law remedy issued to compel the performance of a statutory duty where the Applicant has established a clear legal right, the Respondent owes a corresponding public duty, all conditions precedent have been fulfilled, there has been a demand and refusal or unreasonable delay in performance, and there exists no other efficacious remedy.
The principles were authoritatively stated in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji & Others Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996 and have consistently been applied in subsequent decisions including Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another ex parte Schon Noorani & Another [2018] eKLR.
The Ex-Pate Applicant was attacked by a hippo occasioning grievous bodily harm which was attributed to the negligence of the 1st Respondent. He reported to the to the police vide OB No.05/27/9/2021. He sought treatment and P3 dated 2nd June 2021 was duly filled assessing injuries as grievous harm suffered as a result of the hippo attack. Subsequently a report was made to the 1st Respondent and the Mr. Derrick Karinga for the 1st Respondent has acknowledged in the Replying Affidavit that indeed the Ex-Parte Applicant suffered injuries and according to him the claim is premature because upon receipt of claim form the same were returned for clarification since there were differences between the date of the incident in the medical Report attached to the claim and that in all the other documents.
That the Applicant was requested to visit the Homa Bay office for clarification but he never attended despite numerous requests. That it is the Applicant who has delayed in providing the necessary clarification is provided for the claim to be duly processed.
The 1st Respondent did not however attach any proof of the summons to the Ex-Parte Applicant requiring him to attend to their Homa Bay office. In the circumstances there is no proof that the delay was occasioned by the Applicant.
In the circumstances of the acknowledgement by Mr. Karinga this court finds that the Applicant has met the threshold for issuance of an order of mandamus to compel the Respondents to issue an approval for compensation for the injuries suffered by the Ex-Parte Applicant and pay the same within 60 days from the day of this judgment.
The costs of this application to be borne by the Respondents.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI THIS 24TH DAY OFJULY, 2026.
The claim is supported by the grounds in the statutory statement dated 12th March, 2025 and the Verifying Affidavit of Francis Mohamed Mukama sworn on 14th March, 2025 respectively.
The Ex-Parte Applicant averred that on 27th September, 2021 he was viciously attacked by a crocodile while fishing within Muhuru Bay occasioning grievous injuries as a result of the 1st Respondent’s negligence and breach of statutory duty as governed by the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No. 47 of 2013.
Following the incident, a report was made at Muhuru Bay Police Station vide OB No. 05/27/09/21. That the Ex-Parte Applicant thereafter applied for compensation by filling claim forms provided by the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent’s Officers went to take the details and promised to compensate the ex-parte Applicant for the injuries caused in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013.
That the Ex-Parte Applicant has on various occasions made a follow up on the compensation but the Respondents took him in circles. That he waited for 4 years and the Respondent is yet to consider the compensation. That the Respondent has continued to unjustifiably delay the compensation without plausible explanation. That the application is meritorious and has been brought without unreasonable delay. The Ex-Parte Applicant is apprehensive thayt unless the court intervenes and compel the Respondent to act on their decision and settle the claim, the Respondent will continue to ignore the Applicant’s demanfd for compensation and thus corrode and erode the confidence of the Applicant and the general public in the efficiency of the administrative process of Kenya.
1. The Respondents filed a response through Replying Affidavit sworn by Derrick Karinga on 22nd October, 2025 in which it was deponed as follows:-
2. THAT I am the 1st Respondent’s Legal Officer, fully conversant with the facts of this case, thus competent to make this Affidavit.
3. THAT I have read and understood the Notice of Motion Application dated 18th March, 2025, the Statutory Statement, and the verifying affidavit of Francis Mohamed Mukama sworn on 14th March 2025 and the Annexures thereto and in response wish to state as follows.
4. THAT the Application is premature, fatally defective and bad in law to the extent that it seeks to compel the 1st Respondent to do that which is not within the 1st Respondent’s mandate.
5. THAT the 1st Respondent is established under Section 6 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and its functions provided for under section 7 of the Act.
6. THAT it is not the duty of the 1st Respondent under section 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and it is not within the Respondent’s statutory mandate to compensate the ex parte Applicant.
7. THAT the 2nd Respondent, the County Wildlife Conservation Committee of
Migori 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.
8. THAT the 1st Respondent is only the secretary to the County Wildlife Conservation Committee established under Section 18 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013.
9. THAT the Migori County Wildlife Conservation Committee considered the Applicant’s claim for compensation and recommended the same for compensation to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife in accordance with section 25(2) of the WCMA.
10. THAT the Cabinet Secretary deferred the claim and returned the same to the Service for clarification, since there was a difference between the date of the incident in the medical report attached to the claim and that in all the other documents.
11. THAT upon receipt of the claim form and supporting documents, the 1st Respondent’s Homa Bay station officers informed the ex parte Applicant to attend their offices so as to offer the required clarification, through the availed mobile contact of the next of kin.
12. THAT the ex parte Applicant has never attended the 1st Respondent’s office despite numerous requests to do so.
13. THAT the Respondents have discharged their mandate and it is the ex parte Applicant who has failed to move with haste to ensure the necessary clarifications are provided and the claim is duly processed.
14. THAT the ex parte Applicant is thus knowingly misrepresenting to this Honourable Court that his claim is yet to be considered by the Respondents.
15. THAT as regards compensation, section 25(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act places the role of payment of compensation squarely on the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife.
16. THAT as such, this Honourable Court cannot issue any orders contrary to the express provisions of statute as this would amount to an illegality.
17. THAT from the foregoing, it is clear that the 1st Respondent duly performed their statutory duty under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the Applicant’s allegations remain spurious and the suit herein is unmerited, an abuse of the court process and the reliefs sought are unwarranted.
18. THAT the Application is not merited as against the 1st Respondent and should be dismissed with costs.
19. THAT what is deponed to herein is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief save where otherwise stated sources whereof have been disclosed.
Directions were taken that the application be heard by way of written submissions
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
The Applicant’s Counsel filed submissions dated 16th February, 2026 and the Respondents submissions are dated 8th June 2026.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions of the parties, the following issues arise for determination:
i. Whether an order of mandamus should issue.
ii. Who bears the costs of the application.
Judicial review is concerned with the legality of decision-making processes and the performance of public duties by public bodies. The law governing the issuance of an order of mandamus is now settled. Mandamus is a public law remedy issued to compel the performance of a statutory duty where the Applicant has established a clear legal right, the Respondent owes a corresponding public duty, all conditions precedent have been fulfilled, there has been a demand and refusal or unreasonable delay in performance, and there exists no other efficacious remedy.
The principles were authoritatively stated in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji & Others Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996 and have consistently been applied in subsequent decisions including Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another ex parte Schon Noorani & Another [2018] eKLR.
The Ex-Pate Applicant was attacked by a hippo occasioning grievous bodily harm which was attributed to the negligence of the 1st Respondent. He reported to the to the police vide OB No.05/27/9/2021. He sought treatment and P3 dated 2nd June 2021 was duly filled assessing injuries as grievous harm suffered as a result of the hippo attack. Subsequently a report was made to the 1st Respondent and the Mr. Derrick Karinga for the 1st Respondent has acknowledged in the Replying Affidavit that indeed the Ex-Parte Applicant suffered injuries and according to him the claim is premature because upon receipt of claim form the same were returned for clarification since there were differences between the date of the incident in the medical Report attached to the claim and that in all the other documents.
That the Applicant was requested to visit the Homa Bay office for clarification but he never attended despite numerous requests. That it is the Applicant who has delayed in providing the necessary clarification is provided for the claim to be duly processed.
The 1st Respondent did not however attach any proof of the summons to the Ex-Parte Applicant requiring him to attend to their Homa Bay office. In the circumstances there is no proof that the delay was occasioned by the Applicant.
In the circumstances of the acknowledgement by Mr. Karinga this court finds that the Applicant has met the threshold for issuance of an order of mandamus to compel the Respondents to issue an approval for compensation for the injuries suffered by the Ex-Parte Applicant and pay the same within 60 days from the day of this judgment.
The costs of this application to be borne by the Respondents.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI THIS 24TH DAY OFJULY, 2026.