John (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Paul Mutua Kasimu - Deceased) v Kenya Wildlife Service & another (Civil Case E228 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 318 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan magistrates' courts cannot hear wildlife injury or damage compensation claims; you must first file with the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim given section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act
- 2.Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies bars the suit
- 3.What constitutes a valid preliminary objection
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court over wildlife compensation claims
The Magistrate's Court lacks original jurisdiction; claims under section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act must first go to the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee.
The court reviewed conflicting Court of Appeal decisions. Applying stare decisis, it followed the more recent Edward Koome decision (2024), which held the claim belongs to the Committee, and aligned this with Supreme Court authorities on exhaustion of administrative remedies. The plaintiff did not attempt the statutory procedure. Jurisdiction may be ousted by other written law beyond the Magistrates Court Act.
Resolving conflicting superior court precedent
A subordinate court faced with conflicting decisions of a superior court is entitled to follow the more recent decision which considered the conflicting authorities.
Relying on Woolfrey v Piche, Jamt v Schuurman and the Gacheche decision, the court held that where two decisions cannot be reconciled, the more recent and more consistent with general principles ought to prevail, subject to any Supreme Court determination.
Nature of a preliminary objection
A jurisdictional objection fits the definition of a preliminary objection and may be raised at any stage of active proceedings.
Applying Mukisa Biscuit and Ng'ang'a Kahuha, the court found the objection was a pure point of law requiring no ascertainment of facts, and that jurisdiction must be addressed whenever it arises.
Legal principles established
#- Where a Court of Appeal has issued conflicting decisions, a subordinate court may follow the more recent decision which considered the conflicting one
- Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act requires claims for wildlife-caused injury or loss to be lodged first with the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is upheld
- 2.The plaintiff's suit is struck out
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(2) and 169(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Magistrates Court Act No. 26 of 2015
Relief refused
#Continuation of the plaintiff's suit in the Magistrate's Court
The court held it lacks original jurisdiction; the proper forum is the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee
Costs
Costs to the 1st defendant
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 above considerations is that the preliminary objection is meritorious. I proceed to uphold the same. Consequently, the plaintifi's suit is hereby struck out with costs to the 1st defendant.
It is my finding that this court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the plaintifi's claim. The proper forum is the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee within the jurisdiction established under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
where two cases cannot be reconciled, the more recent and the more consistent with general principles ought to prevail
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
The exhaustion doctrine is a sound one and serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a postponement of judicial consideration of matters to ensure that a party is first of all diligent in the protection of his own interest within the mechanism in place for resolution outside of courts.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting Court of Appeal decisions acknowledged by the court (Muturi Njuguna and Kalonzo on one side; Edward Koome on the other) - resolved by following the more recent decision, but the conflict remains until Supreme Court determination
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Paul Mutua Kasimu - Deceased) v Kenya Wildlife Service & another (Civil Case E228 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 318 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/318/eng@2025-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.