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

Mutua v Kenya Wildlife Service & another (Tribunal Appeal 11 of 2022) [2022] KENET 702 (KLR) (Civ) (6 September 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KENET 702 (KLR) KENET
Read PDF
Court
KENET
Case number
702
Citation
[2022] KENET 702 (KLR)
Decided
6 September 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the rejection of a claim for compensationCoramMOHAMMED S BALALA, CHRISTINE KIPSANG, BAHATI MWAMUYE, WAITHAKA NGARUIYA, KARIUKI MUIGUA
Holding

The appeal is allowed, and the respondents are ordered to pay compensation to the appellant

Facts

The appellant claims that a Nile Crocodile invaded his fishpond, resulting in the loss of Nile Tilapia fish and damage to his 0.5 mm pond liner. The respondents rejected the claim due to the claim form not being duly filled, the unclear circumstances of the incident, and the verification form not being signed by the claimant.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation
  2. What is the quantum of compensation due to the appellant

Reasoning

The tribunal found the respondents' reasons for rejecting the claim to be invalid and insincere, and the appellant's claim was supported by the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.

Outcome

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The decision of the 2nd respondent dismissing the appellant’s claim is set aside
  • The 1st respondent shall pay Kshs 510,120/= as compensation for the Tilapia fish
  • The 1st respondent shall pay Kshs 105,000 as compensation for the 0.5 mm U.V treated pond liner
  • The respondents shall bear the costs of the appeal

Remedies

  • Compensation for the Tilapia fish
  • Compensation for the pond liner

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No 47 of 2013
  • Environment Management and Co-ordination Act
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