SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kenya Wildlife Service v Abraham M’ngai M’itumitu [2021] KEHC 7105 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7105 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7105
Citation
[2021] KEHC 7105 (KLR)
Decided
28 January 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the decision of the Maua Chief Magistrate's Court in Civil Suit No. 178 of 2018CoramKoome
Holding

The court allows the appeal and sets aside the judgment in the trial court. The respondent's suit against the appellant is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.

Facts

The respondent filed a suit for compensation for personal injury resulting from wildlife attack, and later amended the suit to claim compensation under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to award the respondent damages assessed under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
  2. Whether section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act ousts jurisdiction of the court.

Reasoning

The court ruled that section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act does not oust jurisdiction of the court, and the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, judgment in the trial court set aside

Orders

  • The judgment in the suit before the trial court in Maua Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Case No. 178 of 2016 is set aside.
  • The respondent's said suit against the appellant is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013
  • Wildlife Management and Conservation Act 2013
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Wildlife Service v Joseph Musyoki Kalonzo [2017] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case