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

Osman v Kenya Wildlife Service (Tribunal Appeal 44 of 2022) [2024] KENET 502 (KLR) (26 February 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KENET 502 (KLR) KENET
Read PDF
Court
KENET
Case number
502
Citation
[2024] KENET 502 (KLR)
Decided
26 February 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the rejection of compensation claim by the Ministerial Wildlife Conservation and Compensation CommitteeCoramEMMANUEL MUMIA, Winnie Tsuma, DUNCAN KURIA, RONALD ALLAMANO
Holding

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the appeal under Section 25(6) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.

Facts

The Appellant, Adan Issack Osman, filed a compensation claim for injuries sustained by his son Zakaria Adan due to a snake bite. The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) rejected the claim citing lack of information regarding the relationship of the victim with the next of kin. The Appellant appealed this decision.

Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the National Environment Tribunal to hear the appeal
  2. Time-barred nature of the appeal

Reasoning

The Respondent submitted that the appeal was time-barred by Section 25(6) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, which requires an appeal to be filed within 30 days after being notified of the decision. The Appellant's appeal was filed 5 days beyond this period.

Outcome

The Appellant's Notice of Appeal is struck out.

Orders

  • The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated November 30, 2022 is struck out.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013
  • Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, Section 25(6)
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