Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & 3 others; Musau (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 54 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 102 (KLR) (7 February 2022) (Ruling)

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the judicial review application was filed within the 6-month statutory period as per Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act, considering the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020.
• Whether the decision-making process for the compensation claim adhered to the Constitution (Articles 10, 47, 48, 50), the Fair Administrative Actions Act, and the Kenya Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, particularly regarding procedural fairness and natural justice.
• What remedies should be granted to address the invalid decision by the Ministerial Wildlife Conservation Compensation Committee, including vacating the decision and restarting the process.
• Whether Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is a necessary party to the judicial review proceedings given its role in facilitating compensation claims and the existence of the Ministerial Wildlife Conservation Compensation Committee.

Holdings

• The Court granted an order of certiorari to quash the Ministerial Committee's decision, directing parties to revert to the status quo and reprocess the claim through the legally mandated CWCCC in compliance with the Constitution and relevant legislation. The Applicant was awarded costs.
• The Court held that Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is a necessary party to the proceedings due to its statutory role in facilitating compensation claims under Sections 7(c), 7(m), 18, 19, and 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013. KWS's involvement is critical for determining the legality of the decision-making process.
• The Court determined that the Applicant's judicial review application was filed within the statutory 6-month period, as the lockdown in March 2020 did not invalidate the filing timeline. The application was submitted on 7th April 2020, within 6 months of the impugned decision dated 7th October 2019.
• The Court found the Ministerial Wildlife Conservation Compensation Committee's decision to reject the Applicant's claim was illegal and irrational. The Committee acted ultra vires by overturning a previously approved claim from the legally mandated County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee (CWCCC) without affording the Applicant a fair hearing or procedural fairness.

Remedies

• The Court ordered the parties to revert to the status quo ante, requiring the legally mandated County Wildlife Conservation and Compensation Committee to restart the decision-making process on the Applicant's claim in accordance with the Constitution and relevant legislation.
• The Court granted an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Ministerial Wildlife Conservation Compensation Committee dated 7th October 2019, which rejected the Applicant's compensation claim. The decision was made by an unlawful body without jurisdiction, and the Applicant was denied a fair hearing.
• The Court allowed the Judicial Review application and directed that the costs follow the event, entitling the Applicant to recover the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Legal Principles

• The court granted judicial review because the Ministerial Wildlife Conservation Compensation Committee acted ultra vires by making a decision without legal jurisdiction. The committee was not established under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, which only authorizes the County Wildlife Conservation Committees to handle compensation claims. This unlawful exercise of authority rendered the decision invalid.
• The court held that the applicant was denied a fair hearing, violating the rules of natural justice. The applicant was not informed of the inconsistencies in her claim documentation and was not given an opportunity to clarify them. The decision-making process failed to adhere to procedural fairness, as required by the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act, leading to the rejection of the claim being quashed.

Precedent Name

• Benjamin Leonard Mafay vs United Africa Company Limited (UK)
• Republic vs Kenya Revenue Authority Exparte Yaya Towers Limited
• Isaack Osman Sheik vs IEBC & Others
• Savana Saw Mills Limited vs George Mwale Mudomo
• Tuck & Sons Limited
• Pastoli vs Kabale District Local Government Council & Others
• Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & Others
• Council of Mombasa vs Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd

Cited Statute

• Constitution of Kenya 2010
• Fair Administrative Action Act
• Wildlife Conservation and Management Act
• Law Reform Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The decision-making process was tainted by illegality; the decision made by the legally instituted body CWCCC was overturned by an unknown body called Ministerial Wildlife Compensation Committee which acted without jurisdiction or ultra vires or contrary to the provisions of law or its principles.
• The Applicant was deprived of fair hearing and condemned unheard. The decision-making process was irrational due to unreasonableness due to the failure to observe natural justice and act with procedural fairness.
• The remedy that commends itself to the matter at hand is Order of Certiorari and the decision of the Ministerial Wildlife Compensation Committee as contained in the letter of 7th October 2019 is vacated forthwith.