1. The Ex Parte Applicants moved this Court by way of a notice of motion dated 4 th May 2026 and based on the grounds in the statutory statement dated 4 th May 206 they sought orders inter alia; that an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to immediately release Kshs.5,000,000/= to the Applicants Advocate; costs and further incidentals to this application be provided for by the respondents; such further or other relief as the Honorable court may deem just and expedient to grant.
2. The Application is grounded on the Statutory Statement and the supporting affidavit jointly sworn on 4th May 2026 by Mildred Adhiambo Omondi and Ernest Oduori Omondi wherein it was deposed as follows; that the Applicants are adult Kenyans residing in Nyamonye and are the legal representatives of the deceased's estate under a Limited Grant Ad Litem (Exhibit ME-01); that on or about 13th October 2025, the deceased (a 15-year-old student) was fatally attacked by a crocodile along River Yala within Nyamonye Sub-location sustaining severe polysystemic injuries leading to his death (Death Certificate Exhibit ME-02); that the matter was promptly reported at Nyamonye Police Post under OB No. 08/13/10/2025 (Police Abstract Exhibit ME-03 ) and at the area Chief’s office; that KWS officers visited the scene, recorded particulars and directed the Applicants to complete and lodge the prescribed claim forms; that In or about December 2025, the Community Wildlife Conservation Committee (CWCC) convened, considered the claim and forwarded recommendations to the Ministerial Wildlife Compensation Committee (MWCC); that upon follow-up at the Respondent's County offices in 2026, the Applicants were informed that the MWCC had duly validated and approved the statutory compensation award of Kshs. 5,000,000; that notwithstanding the approval, the Respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to release the funds remaining evasive and unresponsive despite persistent follow-up; that statutory timelines have lapsed, the Respondent's continued inaction is unreasonable and devoid of lawful explanation and that an order of Mandamus is necessary to enforce the crystallized public duty.
3. A brief background of the Ex-parte applicant’s case is that on or about 13th October 2025, the deceased was fatally attacked by a crocodile along River Yala within Nyamonye Sub-location. The incident was reported at Nyamonye Police Station (OB Number 08/13/10/2025) and at the area Chief's office. The Respondent's officers visited the scene and recorded the relevant particulars.
4. Pursuant to the Respondent's directions, the Ex-parte Applicants lodged a claim for compensation by completing and submitting the prescribed claim forms. The claim was considered by the Community Wildlife Conservation Committee (CWCC) which made recommendations to the Ministerial Wildlife Compensation Committee (MWCC). The Ex-parte Applicants were informed that the MWCC had duly approved the compensation award of Kshs. 5,000,000/= in respect of the deceased. However, despite this approval and numerous follow-ups, the Respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to effect payment of the compensation.
5. The Respondent opposes the application through a replying affidavit sworn on 28th January 2026 by M/s Sheila Ochieng, the Siaya County Warden, wherein she deposes interalia that ; the Application is fatally defective and bad in law as it seeks to compel the Respondent to do that which is not within the Respondent’s mandate; that the Respondent is established under Section 6 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and its functions are provided for under section 7 of the Act; that it is not the duty of the 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 Applicants; that the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife through the cabinet secretary is mandated to consider recommendations made by the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee under Section 25 (2) and where appropriate pay compensation to the claimant as per Section 25 (3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 (WCMA); that the Respondent is only the secretary to the County Wildlife Conservation Committee established under Section 18 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013; that on 23rd October, 2025 the ex parte Applicant Ernest Oduori Omondi reported the claim at the Respondent’s Siaya station; that the ex parte Applicant was issued with a compensation claim form for persons injured/killed by wildlife; that the ex parte Applicant lodged a claim for compensation by completing and submitting the prescribed clam forms, as per Section 25(1) of the WCMA; that the claim is now pending deliberation by the Siaya County CWCC; that upon verification the Community Wildlife Conservation Committee (CWCC) submits the claim to the Cabinet Secretary together with its recommendation thereon; that in effect, the ex parte Applicants are asking this Honourable Court to ignore the strict provisions of section 25(3) of the WCMA and in total contravention of this provision, compel the Respondent to pay compensation; that there is currently no award for compensation capable of execution by way of issuance of orders of mandamus as sought by the Applicants; that what the ex parte Applicants are asking of this Honourable Court through the reliefs sought, the court cannot grant the order of mandamus; that the Application is not merited as against the Respondent and should be dismissed with costs.
6. Vide Court directions, parties canvassed the substantive motion application by way of written submissions. However at the time of writing this ruling, there were no submissions by the Respondent through the CTS portal while the Applicants duly complied.
7. The Applicants submitted that the law governing the remedy of mandamus is firmly settled, citing the Court of Appeal decision in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] KECA 58 (KLR). In that case, the Court held that an order of mandamus is a command issued to compel the performance of a public duty imposed by statute where a public body has failed or refused to perform it and where the applicant possesses a legal right to expect performance with no other equally convenient, beneficial and effective remedy available.
8. The Applicants contend that where a statute imposes a duty upon a public authority to the detriment of an entitled person or where discretion has already been exercised leaving only implementation, mandamus is the appropriate remedy. In this case, the Applicants contended that the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act establishes a complete statutory mechanism for compensation. The claim traversed every statutory stage and the relevant committees exercised their discretion to approve the compensation payable to the estate. Accordingly, the Applicants submitted that the Respondent is no longer exercising discretion; rather, it is under a purely ministerial statutory obligation to implement a decision already made. Upon statutory approval, a corresponding legal right accrued in favor of the Applicants which the Court is empowered to protect via judicial review.
9. The Applicants relied on Article 47 of the Constitution which guarantees every person the right to lawful, reasonable efficient and expeditious administrative action obligating public authorities to implement lawful decisions within a reasonable time. Citing Suchan Investment Ltd v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others [2016] KECA 729 (KLR), the Applicants highlighted that judicial review ensures accountability, rationality and fidelity to Article 47, extending to unlawful administrative inaction. They also cited Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic; Umoja Consultants Ltd [2002] KECA 8 (KLR ) to assert that a statutory body’s refusal to implement its own lawful decision without justification is amenable to judicial review. The Applicants pointed out that the compensation approval is undisputed. The Respondent has neither rescinded the approval nor cited any statutory impediment but has remained silent while withholding the funds. They argued that such prolonged silence and bureaucratic delay amount to unlawful administrative inaction that undermines the statute and erodes public confidence.
10. The Applicants submitted that Mandamus is the only efficacious remedy available. They relied on Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] KEHC 1643 (KLR) and Republic v Attorney General & another Ex parte James Alfred Koroso [2013] KEHC 90 (KLR). These authorities establish that once a public body's obligation has crystallized, the Court will issue an order of mandamus regardless of internal administrative arrangements, financial challenges or budgetary constraints. The Applicants clarified that they are not asking the Court to re-assess the merits of the award or substitute its decision for that of the Respondent but merely to compel the implementation of a decision already lawfully reached. They concluded that the Respondent retains no residual discretion and that its continued refusal to pay renders the statutory compensation framework illusory. Judicial intervention is therefore necessary to compel the Respondent to perform its crystallized public duty .
11. The Ex Parte Applicants maintained that they have demonstrated a clear statutory obligation, full fulfillment of all statutory prerequisites, unlawful failure by the Respondent to pay and the absence of any other efficacious remedy. Consequently, they prayed that the notice of motion be allowed as prayed with costs awarded to the Ex Parte Applicants.
12. I have considered the application, the affidavits both in support of and in opposition to the application and the submissions thereto. I find that the following issues necessary for determination:
i. Whether the Respondent is statutorily bound to manage national parks and reserves;
ii. Whether the Respondent is mandated to compensate the exparte Applicants;
iii. Whether the exparte Applicants are entitled to the order for mandamus.
13. As regards the first issue, it is noted that learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has admitted that the Respondent is statutorily bound to manage national parks and reserves. The said function is found in Section 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act which outlines the functions of the Kenya Wildlife Services as follows:
a. Conserves and manage national park, wildlife conservation areas, and sanctuaries under its authority.
b. Provide security for wildlife and visitors in national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries.
14. From the foregoing provision, it is clear that the Respondent is established to perform key functions namely conserve and manage national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries under its jurisdiction as well as provide security for wildlife and visitors in national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries. From those duties the Respondent has the sole mandate to manage and control wildlife in Kenya. Hence, up to that point the exparte Applicants and the Respondent are in agreement that it is the sole mandate of the Respondent to control wildlife in Kenya.
15. Even though the Respondent seems to contend that certain functions have been ceded to other organs, the truth is that the Respondent is still the entity in charge of all wildlife in the country and that all issues and questions regarding the actions, damage caused by the wildlife must be placed at the doorstep of the 1st Respondent. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v. Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited [2018] eKLR, held that the Appellant had the statutory duty to control wildlife by dint of Section 3A (1) of the Wildlife Act and held as follows:
The Appellant’s obligations under Section 3A(l) could not and were not abdicated in favour of or transferred to Narok County Government. Without belaboring on this point any further, we find that the breach of Section 3A (l) imposes a liability on the Appellant to compensate for destruction of crops by wildlife.
16. As regards the second issue and as noted in issue (i), the Respondent is mandated to manage national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries under its jurisdiction. Flowing from that function, it is also its duty to compensate the ex parte Applicants by dint of the provisions of Section 3A and 7 of the Act. Further, the compensation regime is found in Section 25 of the Act which provides for the procedure to be followed for payment of damages by a claimant who opts to pursue his claim under the Act as was done by the exparte Applicants which is as follows:
‘’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 representatives or successor or assign, may launch a claim to the County Wild life 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 Section 18 shall verify a claim made under sub section (1) and upon verification, submit the claim to the cabinet secretary together with its recommendation.
3. The Cabinet Secretary shall consider the recommendations made under sub section (2) and where appropriate pay compensation to the claimant as follows:
a. In the case of death, five million shillings.
b. In the case of injury occasioning permanent disability, three million shillings.
c. In case of any other injury, a maximum of two million shillings, depending on the extent of the injury.
17. That it is not in dispute the Applicant’s request for compensation has already been vetted and approved by the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 5,000,000/=. That the Respondent has maintained that it is not its duty to compensate the Applicant. That under Section 6 and 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, the Respondent has obligations under the Act and cannot run away from them. In the same vein, the duty to compensate victims arising from human-wildlife conflicts is squarely on its shoulders to discharge.
33. Section 25 of the Act provides as follows:
1. When anybody 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 representatives 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 set up under Section 18 shall verify a claim made under Section 18 shall verify a claim made under subsection (1) and upon verification, give the claim to the cabinet secretary together with its recommendation thereon.
3. The Cabinet Secretary shall consider the recommendations made under subsection (2) and, where proper pay compensation to the claimant as follows:
a. in the case of death, five million shillings.
b. in the case of injury occasioning permanent disability, three million shillings.
c. In case of any other injury, a maximum of two million shillings, depending on the extent of the injury.
18. Since the Respondent has admitted its duty under Section 7 of the Act namely to manage and conserve wildlife, I find that it is liable under the tort of negligence which incidentally attracts a duty of care on the part of the Respondent to ensure that wildlife do not injure or maim human beings. I find that the Respondent breached that duty of care which led to the death of the deceased. It was the duty of the Respondent to ensure that the animal habitat was safe to human beings from animal attacks. The Applicants have maintained that the deceased a 15-year-old child met his death through a fatal attack by a crocodile along River Yala and therefore the claim for compensation is legitimate. I find that the Respondent cannot run away from its responsibility to compensate the Applicants. This is backed by the aforegoing decisions of the courts.
19. Again, the Court of Appeal has said and reinstated that the duty to manage the National parks and reserves comes with the attendant responsibility to shoulder claims arising out of loss, injury or damage caused to property and human life by wildlife. See the case of Wildlife Service v. Joseph Musyoki Kalonzo (2017) eKLR and Joseph Boro Negra & Supa Duka Nakuru v. Kenya Wildlife Service Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1997 . Further, in the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v. Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited, Supreme Court Petition No. 11 of 2015 (2018) eKLR at paragraph 66 stated as follows : A global comparison of laws and jurisprudence relating to animal and wildlife management normally provides that an entity charged with such a management task also collects the revenues generated from activities relating to the same. The rationale being that such revenue supports the cost of management and any related outcomes, including compensation for damages made by animals and wildlife…. The wildlife Act gives responsibility to Kenya Wildlife Service as the park revenue collector to compensate for damages occasioned by wild animals.
20. From the foregoing authorities, it is incumbent upon the Respondent to compensate the exparte Applicant since the Applicant’s claim had been approved following the laid down procedures under Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act as stated above. The Respondent therefore owes the Applicant the amount of Kshs5000,000/= as compensation for the injury. The court notes that the Respondent has maintained that it has no role to play regarding compensation of the Applicants on the ground that it is supposed to be the cabinet secretary by dint of Section 25(3) of the Act. However, and as noted from the conduct of the 1st Respondent in arranging an initial payment, the exparte Applicants were entitled to approach this court for compensation since they are within their legal rights to seek the enforcement of compensation as a public duty upon the Respondent who owes them an amount Kshs5,000,000/= and who has failed to satisfy the same. It seems the Respondent’s objection is a smokescreen meant to evade performing its obligations and therefore it is my view that it has been properly joined into these proceedings.
21. As regards the third issue, the Exparte Applicants have sought for the order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to pay them the amount already ascertained. In the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v. Awuor (Civil Appeal E013 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3721 (KLR) (26April2023) (Judgment) and Kenya Wildlife Service v. Abraham Mangai Mitmita [2021] eKLR the courts held that:
“The Appellant having been awarded an amount under the Act, further intervention in court could only have been by the appeal process following upon the provision of the section, that is to say, through the mechanism of a first appeal to the tribunal and thereafter a second appeal to the Environment and Land Court. The Respondent may have opted to pursue its claim for compensation in negligence for damages for personal injury in the civil court as an alternative to the statutory compensation mechanism. That without deciding, I would consider that the Respondent may also have pursued judicial review remedy in the High Court, if so, advised by his advocates, for the award of the full award of compensation prescribed under the Act. The Respondent may also, as he may be advised, by his legal advisors, file an application for extension of time to pursue the appeal process set out in Section 25 (6) of the Act.”
22. Applying the above principles to the present case, the exparte Applicants are within their right to file the instant judicial review to enforce the compensation. Consequently, the Respondent has failed to compensate exparte Applicants and now contends that it is the cabinet secretary who ought to make the payments and not themselves. The Court of Appeal in Kenya Wildlife Service v. Joseph Musyoki Kilonzo (2017) eKLR, stipulated as follows on this issue:
The Appellant admits the duty to manage and conserve wildlife. The duty comes with the attendant responsibility to shoulder any claims of loss or damage caused by the breach of that duty. The law on that point was succinctly pronounced in Joseph Boru Negra & Another v. Kenya Wildlife Service v. 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 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.
23. It is not in dispute that the Respondent is liable to compensate the exparte Applicant and that it is not for them to concern themselves with the internal arrangements of the Respondent as to whether the cabinet secretary should disburse the monies to the Applicants. It is my considered view that the Respondent is liable to compensate the exparte Applicants and that the Applicants’ claim was approved following the laid down procedures under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
24. I find that the Applicants have satisfied this court that the Respondent owes them an amount of Kshs5,000,000/= in the form of compensation for fatal injuries occasioned to the deceased. That Applicants have been compelled to approach the court for redress following the failure of the Respondent to compensate them despite the clear provisions under the relevant Act.
25. That under the Kenya Subsidiary Legislation 2017, Legal Notice No. 245, published in September 2017, the Minister published the said regulations. Under part IV section 27(1) and (2) the Applicant’s claim was to be settled within 60 days of reporting. It is now almost 1-year 6months since the Claimants reported their claim. Despite the Respondent approving the same for payment of Ksh5,000,000/ as has been admitted by the Respondent, the same is still outstanding to date.
26. In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the Applicants’ application dated 4 th May 2026 has merit. The same is allowed in the following terms:
a. That the Respondent is hereby compelled by an order of Mandamus to pay Kshs 5, 000,000/ = as compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased and that the same should be paid to the ex parte Applicants as had been already approved.
b. That the costs of this application are awarded to the Applicants.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Siaya, this 18 th day of September 2026
D.KEMEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ouko…………………………...for the Applicants
M/s Walubengo……………………..for the Respondent
Maurine……………………………….Court Assistant
SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5 SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5
2. The Application is grounded on the Statutory Statement and the supporting affidavit jointly sworn on 4th May 2026 by Mildred Adhiambo Omondi and Ernest Oduori Omondi wherein it was deposed as follows; that the Applicants are adult Kenyans residing in Nyamonye and are the legal representatives of the deceased's estate under a Limited Grant Ad Litem (Exhibit ME-01); that on or about 13th October 2025, the deceased (a 15-year-old student) was fatally attacked by a crocodile along River Yala within Nyamonye Sub-location sustaining severe polysystemic injuries leading to his death (Death Certificate Exhibit ME-02); that the matter was promptly reported at Nyamonye Police Post under OB No. 08/13/10/2025 (Police Abstract Exhibit ME-03 ) and at the area Chief’s office; that KWS officers visited the scene, recorded particulars and directed the Applicants to complete and lodge the prescribed claim forms; that In or about December 2025, the Community Wildlife Conservation Committee (CWCC) convened, considered the claim and forwarded recommendations to the Ministerial Wildlife Compensation Committee (MWCC); that upon follow-up at the Respondent's County offices in 2026, the Applicants were informed that the MWCC had duly validated and approved the statutory compensation award of Kshs. 5,000,000; that notwithstanding the approval, the Respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to release the funds remaining evasive and unresponsive despite persistent follow-up; that statutory timelines have lapsed, the Respondent's continued inaction is unreasonable and devoid of lawful explanation and that an order of Mandamus is necessary to enforce the crystallized public duty.
3. A brief background of the Ex-parte applicant’s case is that on or about 13th October 2025, the deceased was fatally attacked by a crocodile along River Yala within Nyamonye Sub-location. The incident was reported at Nyamonye Police Station (OB Number 08/13/10/2025) and at the area Chief's office. The Respondent's officers visited the scene and recorded the relevant particulars.
4. Pursuant to the Respondent's directions, the Ex-parte Applicants lodged a claim for compensation by completing and submitting the prescribed claim forms. The claim was considered by the Community Wildlife Conservation Committee (CWCC) which made recommendations to the Ministerial Wildlife Compensation Committee (MWCC). The Ex-parte Applicants were informed that the MWCC had duly approved the compensation award of Kshs. 5,000,000/= in respect of the deceased. However, despite this approval and numerous follow-ups, the Respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to effect payment of the compensation.
5. The Respondent opposes the application through a replying affidavit sworn on 28th January 2026 by M/s Sheila Ochieng, the Siaya County Warden, wherein she deposes interalia that ; the Application is fatally defective and bad in law as it seeks to compel the Respondent to do that which is not within the Respondent’s mandate; that the Respondent is established under Section 6 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 and its functions are provided for under section 7 of the Act; that it is not the duty of the 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 Applicants; that the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife through the cabinet secretary is mandated to consider recommendations made by the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee under Section 25 (2) and where appropriate pay compensation to the claimant as per Section 25 (3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 (WCMA); that the Respondent is only the secretary to the County Wildlife Conservation Committee established under Section 18 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013; that on 23rd October, 2025 the ex parte Applicant Ernest Oduori Omondi reported the claim at the Respondent’s Siaya station; that the ex parte Applicant was issued with a compensation claim form for persons injured/killed by wildlife; that the ex parte Applicant lodged a claim for compensation by completing and submitting the prescribed clam forms, as per Section 25(1) of the WCMA; that the claim is now pending deliberation by the Siaya County CWCC; that upon verification the Community Wildlife Conservation Committee (CWCC) submits the claim to the Cabinet Secretary together with its recommendation thereon; that in effect, the ex parte Applicants are asking this Honourable Court to ignore the strict provisions of section 25(3) of the WCMA and in total contravention of this provision, compel the Respondent to pay compensation; that there is currently no award for compensation capable of execution by way of issuance of orders of mandamus as sought by the Applicants; that what the ex parte Applicants are asking of this Honourable Court through the reliefs sought, the court cannot grant the order of mandamus; that the Application is not merited as against the Respondent and should be dismissed with costs.
6. Vide Court directions, parties canvassed the substantive motion application by way of written submissions. However at the time of writing this ruling, there were no submissions by the Respondent through the CTS portal while the Applicants duly complied.
7. The Applicants submitted that the law governing the remedy of mandamus is firmly settled, citing the Court of Appeal decision in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others [1997] KECA 58 (KLR). In that case, the Court held that an order of mandamus is a command issued to compel the performance of a public duty imposed by statute where a public body has failed or refused to perform it and where the applicant possesses a legal right to expect performance with no other equally convenient, beneficial and effective remedy available.
8. The Applicants contend that where a statute imposes a duty upon a public authority to the detriment of an entitled person or where discretion has already been exercised leaving only implementation, mandamus is the appropriate remedy. In this case, the Applicants contended that the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act establishes a complete statutory mechanism for compensation. The claim traversed every statutory stage and the relevant committees exercised their discretion to approve the compensation payable to the estate. Accordingly, the Applicants submitted that the Respondent is no longer exercising discretion; rather, it is under a purely ministerial statutory obligation to implement a decision already made. Upon statutory approval, a corresponding legal right accrued in favor of the Applicants which the Court is empowered to protect via judicial review.
9. The Applicants relied on Article 47 of the Constitution which guarantees every person the right to lawful, reasonable efficient and expeditious administrative action obligating public authorities to implement lawful decisions within a reasonable time. Citing Suchan Investment Ltd v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others [2016] KECA 729 (KLR), the Applicants highlighted that judicial review ensures accountability, rationality and fidelity to Article 47, extending to unlawful administrative inaction. They also cited Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic; Umoja Consultants Ltd [2002] KECA 8 (KLR ) to assert that a statutory body’s refusal to implement its own lawful decision without justification is amenable to judicial review. The Applicants pointed out that the compensation approval is undisputed. The Respondent has neither rescinded the approval nor cited any statutory impediment but has remained silent while withholding the funds. They argued that such prolonged silence and bureaucratic delay amount to unlawful administrative inaction that undermines the statute and erodes public confidence.
10. The Applicants submitted that Mandamus is the only efficacious remedy available. They relied on Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] KEHC 1643 (KLR) and Republic v Attorney General & another Ex parte James Alfred Koroso [2013] KEHC 90 (KLR). These authorities establish that once a public body's obligation has crystallized, the Court will issue an order of mandamus regardless of internal administrative arrangements, financial challenges or budgetary constraints. The Applicants clarified that they are not asking the Court to re-assess the merits of the award or substitute its decision for that of the Respondent but merely to compel the implementation of a decision already lawfully reached. They concluded that the Respondent retains no residual discretion and that its continued refusal to pay renders the statutory compensation framework illusory. Judicial intervention is therefore necessary to compel the Respondent to perform its crystallized public duty .
11. The Ex Parte Applicants maintained that they have demonstrated a clear statutory obligation, full fulfillment of all statutory prerequisites, unlawful failure by the Respondent to pay and the absence of any other efficacious remedy. Consequently, they prayed that the notice of motion be allowed as prayed with costs awarded to the Ex Parte Applicants.
12. I have considered the application, the affidavits both in support of and in opposition to the application and the submissions thereto. I find that the following issues necessary for determination:
i. Whether the Respondent is statutorily bound to manage national parks and reserves;
ii. Whether the Respondent is mandated to compensate the exparte Applicants;
iii. Whether the exparte Applicants are entitled to the order for mandamus.
13. As regards the first issue, it is noted that learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has admitted that the Respondent is statutorily bound to manage national parks and reserves. The said function is found in Section 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act which outlines the functions of the Kenya Wildlife Services as follows:
a. Conserves and manage national park, wildlife conservation areas, and sanctuaries under its authority.
b. Provide security for wildlife and visitors in national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries.
14. From the foregoing provision, it is clear that the Respondent is established to perform key functions namely conserve and manage national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries under its jurisdiction as well as provide security for wildlife and visitors in national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries. From those duties the Respondent has the sole mandate to manage and control wildlife in Kenya. Hence, up to that point the exparte Applicants and the Respondent are in agreement that it is the sole mandate of the Respondent to control wildlife in Kenya.
15. Even though the Respondent seems to contend that certain functions have been ceded to other organs, the truth is that the Respondent is still the entity in charge of all wildlife in the country and that all issues and questions regarding the actions, damage caused by the wildlife must be placed at the doorstep of the 1st Respondent. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v. Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited [2018] eKLR, held that the Appellant had the statutory duty to control wildlife by dint of Section 3A (1) of the Wildlife Act and held as follows:
The Appellant’s obligations under Section 3A(l) could not and were not abdicated in favour of or transferred to Narok County Government. Without belaboring on this point any further, we find that the breach of Section 3A (l) imposes a liability on the Appellant to compensate for destruction of crops by wildlife.
16. As regards the second issue and as noted in issue (i), the Respondent is mandated to manage national parks, wildlife conservation areas and sanctuaries under its jurisdiction. Flowing from that function, it is also its duty to compensate the ex parte Applicants by dint of the provisions of Section 3A and 7 of the Act. Further, the compensation regime is found in Section 25 of the Act which provides for the procedure to be followed for payment of damages by a claimant who opts to pursue his claim under the Act as was done by the exparte Applicants which is as follows:
‘’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 representatives or successor or assign, may launch a claim to the County Wild life 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 Section 18 shall verify a claim made under sub section (1) and upon verification, submit the claim to the cabinet secretary together with its recommendation.
3. The Cabinet Secretary shall consider the recommendations made under sub section (2) and where appropriate pay compensation to the claimant as follows:
a. In the case of death, five million shillings.
b. In the case of injury occasioning permanent disability, three million shillings.
c. In case of any other injury, a maximum of two million shillings, depending on the extent of the injury.
17. That it is not in dispute the Applicant’s request for compensation has already been vetted and approved by the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 5,000,000/=. That the Respondent has maintained that it is not its duty to compensate the Applicant. That under Section 6 and 7 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, the Respondent has obligations under the Act and cannot run away from them. In the same vein, the duty to compensate victims arising from human-wildlife conflicts is squarely on its shoulders to discharge.
33. Section 25 of the Act provides as follows:
1. When anybody 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 representatives 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 set up under Section 18 shall verify a claim made under Section 18 shall verify a claim made under subsection (1) and upon verification, give the claim to the cabinet secretary together with its recommendation thereon.
3. The Cabinet Secretary shall consider the recommendations made under subsection (2) and, where proper pay compensation to the claimant as follows:
a. in the case of death, five million shillings.
b. in the case of injury occasioning permanent disability, three million shillings.
c. In case of any other injury, a maximum of two million shillings, depending on the extent of the injury.
18. Since the Respondent has admitted its duty under Section 7 of the Act namely to manage and conserve wildlife, I find that it is liable under the tort of negligence which incidentally attracts a duty of care on the part of the Respondent to ensure that wildlife do not injure or maim human beings. I find that the Respondent breached that duty of care which led to the death of the deceased. It was the duty of the Respondent to ensure that the animal habitat was safe to human beings from animal attacks. The Applicants have maintained that the deceased a 15-year-old child met his death through a fatal attack by a crocodile along River Yala and therefore the claim for compensation is legitimate. I find that the Respondent cannot run away from its responsibility to compensate the Applicants. This is backed by the aforegoing decisions of the courts.
19. Again, the Court of Appeal has said and reinstated that the duty to manage the National parks and reserves comes with the attendant responsibility to shoulder claims arising out of loss, injury or damage caused to property and human life by wildlife. See the case of Wildlife Service v. Joseph Musyoki Kalonzo (2017) eKLR and Joseph Boro Negra & Supa Duka Nakuru v. Kenya Wildlife Service Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1997 . Further, in the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v. Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited, Supreme Court Petition No. 11 of 2015 (2018) eKLR at paragraph 66 stated as follows : A global comparison of laws and jurisprudence relating to animal and wildlife management normally provides that an entity charged with such a management task also collects the revenues generated from activities relating to the same. The rationale being that such revenue supports the cost of management and any related outcomes, including compensation for damages made by animals and wildlife…. The wildlife Act gives responsibility to Kenya Wildlife Service as the park revenue collector to compensate for damages occasioned by wild animals.
20. From the foregoing authorities, it is incumbent upon the Respondent to compensate the exparte Applicant since the Applicant’s claim had been approved following the laid down procedures under Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act as stated above. The Respondent therefore owes the Applicant the amount of Kshs5000,000/= as compensation for the injury. The court notes that the Respondent has maintained that it has no role to play regarding compensation of the Applicants on the ground that it is supposed to be the cabinet secretary by dint of Section 25(3) of the Act. However, and as noted from the conduct of the 1st Respondent in arranging an initial payment, the exparte Applicants were entitled to approach this court for compensation since they are within their legal rights to seek the enforcement of compensation as a public duty upon the Respondent who owes them an amount Kshs5,000,000/= and who has failed to satisfy the same. It seems the Respondent’s objection is a smokescreen meant to evade performing its obligations and therefore it is my view that it has been properly joined into these proceedings.
21. As regards the third issue, the Exparte Applicants have sought for the order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to pay them the amount already ascertained. In the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v. Awuor (Civil Appeal E013 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3721 (KLR) (26April2023) (Judgment) and Kenya Wildlife Service v. Abraham Mangai Mitmita [2021] eKLR the courts held that:
“The Appellant having been awarded an amount under the Act, further intervention in court could only have been by the appeal process following upon the provision of the section, that is to say, through the mechanism of a first appeal to the tribunal and thereafter a second appeal to the Environment and Land Court. The Respondent may have opted to pursue its claim for compensation in negligence for damages for personal injury in the civil court as an alternative to the statutory compensation mechanism. That without deciding, I would consider that the Respondent may also have pursued judicial review remedy in the High Court, if so, advised by his advocates, for the award of the full award of compensation prescribed under the Act. The Respondent may also, as he may be advised, by his legal advisors, file an application for extension of time to pursue the appeal process set out in Section 25 (6) of the Act.”
22. Applying the above principles to the present case, the exparte Applicants are within their right to file the instant judicial review to enforce the compensation. Consequently, the Respondent has failed to compensate exparte Applicants and now contends that it is the cabinet secretary who ought to make the payments and not themselves. The Court of Appeal in Kenya Wildlife Service v. Joseph Musyoki Kilonzo (2017) eKLR, stipulated as follows on this issue:
The Appellant admits the duty to manage and conserve wildlife. The duty comes with the attendant responsibility to shoulder any claims of loss or damage caused by the breach of that duty. The law on that point was succinctly pronounced in Joseph Boru Negra & Another v. Kenya Wildlife Service v. 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 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.
23. It is not in dispute that the Respondent is liable to compensate the exparte Applicant and that it is not for them to concern themselves with the internal arrangements of the Respondent as to whether the cabinet secretary should disburse the monies to the Applicants. It is my considered view that the Respondent is liable to compensate the exparte Applicants and that the Applicants’ claim was approved following the laid down procedures under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
24. I find that the Applicants have satisfied this court that the Respondent owes them an amount of Kshs5,000,000/= in the form of compensation for fatal injuries occasioned to the deceased. That Applicants have been compelled to approach the court for redress following the failure of the Respondent to compensate them despite the clear provisions under the relevant Act.
25. That under the Kenya Subsidiary Legislation 2017, Legal Notice No. 245, published in September 2017, the Minister published the said regulations. Under part IV section 27(1) and (2) the Applicant’s claim was to be settled within 60 days of reporting. It is now almost 1-year 6months since the Claimants reported their claim. Despite the Respondent approving the same for payment of Ksh5,000,000/ as has been admitted by the Respondent, the same is still outstanding to date.
26. In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the Applicants’ application dated 4 th May 2026 has merit. The same is allowed in the following terms:
a. That the Respondent is hereby compelled by an order of Mandamus to pay Kshs 5, 000,000/ = as compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased and that the same should be paid to the ex parte Applicants as had been already approved.
b. That the costs of this application are awarded to the Applicants.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Siaya, this 18 th day of September 2026
D.KEMEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ouko…………………………...for the Applicants
M/s Walubengo……………………..for the Respondent
Maurine……………………………….Court Assistant
SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5 SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5SIAYA HCJRMISC E003 OF 2026 RULING5