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

Masha v Kenya Wildlife Service (Tribunal Appeal 37 of 2020) [2022] KENET 781 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KENET 781 (KLR) KENET
Read PDF
Court
KENET
Case number
781
Citation
[2022] KENET 781 (KLR)
Decided
19 October 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the decision of the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation CommitteeCoramMohamed S Balala, Christine Mwikali Kipsang, MWamuye, Kariuki Muigua, Waithaka Ngaruia
Holding

The committee's finding of inconsistent narratives is set aside. The appellant has satisfied the burden of proof that his mother was bitten by a poisonous snake and passed away from it.

Facts

The appellant's mother, Nyevu Masha Jefwa, was bitten by a poisonous snake on November 19, 2014. She was rushed to Maduguni Dispensary and later confirmed dead at Malindi Hospital. The County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee rejected the claim due to inconsistencies in the narrative.

Issues

  1. Whether the claim by the appellant against the decision of the committee was sustainable.
  2. Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving liability to the required standard.
  3. If liable, what is the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
  4. Who is to pay this compensation.
  5. What orders should this court make.
  6. Who should bear the costs of the appeal.

Reasoning

The committee's decision violated the appellant's right to a fair hearing. The evidence shows the appellant's mother was bitten by a black mamba and died from neurotoxic poison. The committee's inconsistency finding is not sustainable.

Outcome

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • Costs follow the event and are in the discretion of the court.

Remedies

  • Award of compensation to the appellant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No.47 of 2013
  • Fair Administrative Act, 2015
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