Isiolo High Court blocks farmer’s Sh9.4m suit against KWS over Elephant damage

The High Court in Isiolo has overturned a lower court’s ruling that allowed a farmer to sue the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) over crop and livestock losses caused by an elephant attack.

Justice Sophie Chirchir said the Chief Magistrate’s Court lacked jurisdiction to hear such claims.

The judge ruled that claims arising from wildlife attacks must first be handled through the County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee, as outlined in the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013.

The case stemmed from a suit filed by Stephen Muthaura, who sought Sh9.4 million in damages for the destruction of crops and livestock on his Thau/Mumui 1/62 land following an elephant attack on June 11, 2024.

The Isiolo Chief Magistrate’s Court had earlier dismissed a preliminary objection by KWS and allowed the case to proceed, a decision that prompted KWS to appeal.

In its appeal, KWS argued that the Wildlife Act clearly provides an internal mechanism for compensation, which must be exhausted before turning to the courts.

The agency cited several precedents, emphasising that the compensation process begins with the county committee, not the judiciary.

Justice Chirchir agreed with KWS, noting that the Act establishes a specialised mechanism for assessing wildlife-related losses.

This includes committees composed of agricultural, medical, and livestock officers, and a compensation scheme funded specifically for such claims.

“To conclude that a claimant can opt to pursue his or her claim in court is to render useless the elaborate provisions on compensation laid out in the Act,” the judge said.

“Such committees must be allowed to carry out the functions for which they were set up in the first place.”

The court found that Muthaura had not exhausted the remedies available under the Wildlife Act before filing suit.

Justice Chirchir noted that recent trends in the court’s decisions indicate that the courts are emphasising the exhaustion of available internal remedies before parties resort to the courts.

“I associate myself with this position. It accords with the constitutional imperative that calls on courts to promote alternative forms of dispute resolution mechanisms,” the court stated.

Consequently, Justice Chirchir set aside the lower court’s ruling and struck out Muthaura’s case, ordering him to pay costs both for the appeal and the initial suit.

“In the end, the Appeal has merit. The Ruling of the trial court delivered on January 21, 2025, is hereby set aside and is hereby substituted with an order upholding the preliminary objection,’ the judge ruled.

“The respondent's suit is hereby struck off with costs to the Appellant. The costs of this Appeal are further awarded to the Appellant.”

The ruling reinforces a growing judicial trend that emphasises the exhaustion of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms before parties seek redress in court, particularly in cases involving wildlife-related damage or injury.