Kenya Wildlife Service v Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited [2015] KECA 589 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed Kenya Wildlife Service to take a Ksh. 31.5 million wildlife crop-damage compensation ruling to the Supreme Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is a matter of general public importance raised and disclosed
- 2.Whether the certification sought raises a substantial point of law whose determination will have a significant bearing on the public interest
- 3.Whether the questions of law raised in the intended appeal arose in the courts below and were the subject of judicial determination
Key legal issues
#Whether the case involves a matter of general public importance warranting certification to the Supreme Court
Yes - because wildlife migration from Serengeti to Maasai Mara is an annual event, the point of law on KWS liability transcends the parties' dispute and bears on public interest.
The court took judicial notice that wildebeest migration is an annual event and crops may be destroyed repeatedly. The question whether section 3A(l) of the Wildlife Act imposes a compensation duty on KWS is broad-based, potentially recurring, and its resolution by the Supreme Court would give judicial direction and certainty. The issue therefore meets the Steyn criteria for general public importance under Article 163(4)(b).
Whether the point of law is substantial and was judicially determined by the courts below
Yes - the questions of law were raised, canvassed and determined by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The court examined the High Court judgment (Ouko J) awarding Ksh. 31.5 million and its own judgment of 10 October 2014 upholding liability. It was satisfied that the issues raised in the intended appeal had been the subject of judicial determination, satisfying the third Steyn principle, and that the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 3A(l) would provide certainty.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the applicant must show the issue transcends the circumstances of the case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; where the point of law is substantial and arose and was determined below, certification may issue.
Court orders
#- 1.A Certificate issued that a matter of general public importance is involved in the intended appeal to the Supreme Court
- 2.Leave granted to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 3.The following interrelated questions framed for the Supreme Court: (a) whether section 3A(l) of the Wildlife (Conservation & Management) Act imposes a liability on KWS to compensate for loss or destruction to crops caused by wildlife; (b) whether breach of section 3A(l) imposes such liability; (c) whether there is a common law obligation under Donoghue v Stevenson and the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher on KWS to compensate for damage caused by wildlife; (d) whether damage caused by migrating wildlife is an Act of God and the loss lies where it falls
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs in the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution - certification that a matter of general public importance is involved
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot of the foregoing is that we find that the Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2014 has merit and we hereby allow the application, grant leave and issue a Certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Each party shall bear its costs in this application.
…a matter of general public importance warranting the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction would be a matter of law or fact, provided only that: its impact and consequences are substantial, broad based, transcending the litigation- interests of the parties, and bearing upon the public interest.
We are inclined to issue a Certificate and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The Wildlife (Conservation & Management) Act is referred to inconsistently as Cap 376 in most of the judgment but as Cap 276 when discussing the intended appeal
The coram spells the third judge's name as 'OTIEN0-ODEK' (with a zero) in the header but 'OTIENO-ODEK' in the signature block
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Wildlife Service v Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited [2015] KECA 589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. Sup. 19 of 2014 (UR 13/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/589/eng@2015-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.