Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited v Kenya Wildlife Service (Motion 13 of 2015) [2016] KESC 8 (KLR) (20 April 2016) (Ruling)
Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited v Kenya Wildlife Service [2016] eKLR
Neutral citation:
[2016] KESC 8 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Motion 13 of 2015
PK Tunoi, MK Ibrahim, JB Ojwang, SC Wanjala & N Ndungu, SCJJ
April 20, 2016
Between
Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited
Applicant
and
Kenya Wildlife Service
Respondent
(Being an application for review of certification by the Court of Appeal that a matter of general public importance is involved, pursuant to Article 163(4)(b) of {{>/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution the Constitution}} of Kenya, 2010 on the 3{{^rd}} of July, 2015 in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. SUP. 19 of 2014 (UR 13/2014)
Ruling
Introduction
1This is an Originating Motion dated and filed on 17th July, 2015, seeking a review of the certification granted by the Court of Appeal, that a matter of general public importance is involved in the intended appeal. The applicant seeks the determination of the following questions:i.whether Section 3A i of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act as amended imposes a liability on the part of Kenya Wildlife Service, to compensate any person for loss, or destruction to crops caused by wildlife;ii.whether breach of Section 3A i of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act as amended, imposes a liability on the part of Kenya Wildlife Service to compensate any person for loss, or destruction to crops, caused by wildlife;iii.whether there is a common law obligation under the principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 and the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex. 265, on the part of Kenya Wildlife Service, to compensate any person for damage or destruction caused by wildlife; andiv.whether the damage caused by migrating wildlife is an act of God and the loss lies where it falls.PARAGRAPH 3.
2The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 17th July, 2015 by Benson T. Karanja, a Director of the applicant.
Background
Basic Facts.
3This matter was originated by a suit filed by the applicant in the High Court against the respondent, HCCC. No. 256 of 2002. The applicant was claiming general, specific, and exemplary damages for loss occasioned to the farmers’ crops by wild animals.
4The applicant was at all material times the beneficial owner of land surrounding the Maasai Mara National Game Reserve. Between the months of March and May, 2000, the applicant had planted 2000 hectares of wheat, and 40 hectares of barley. Around the months of March and July 2000, when the applicant’s crop was ripe, droves of wildlife, including wildebeests, zebras and antelopes, invaded the farm, and destroyed the wheat and barley crops, resulting into loss and damage.
High Court Proceedings.
5Having suffered such a loss, the applicant filed a suit at the High Court against the respondent, Kenya Wildlife Service, for breach of its statutory duty, and negligence, claiming special damages. The High Court Ouko, J , in a Judgement delivered on 27th July, 2011, found in favour of the applicant, as against the respondent. He held that the respondent was in breach of its statutory duty as provided under Section 3A i of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act Cap. 376 Laws of Kenya , and that it was liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher 1866 L.R. 1 Ex. 265. He awarded the sum of Kshs. 31,500,000 million as special damages.
Court of Appeal Proceedings.
6The respondent, who was aggrieved by the High Court decision, moved to the Court of Appeal. The Appellate Court agreed with the findings of the High Court, dismissing the appeal, and holding that the respondent, under Section 3A i of the Wildlife Act, has a statutory duty to protect the applicant’s crops from damage, and that it had failed to do so. The Court held that it was immaterial that there was no specified remedy for such a breach of statutory duty, and that the applicant was still entitled to claim damages under the common law, and in this regard, the applicant had pleaded and proved the special damages owed to it, and in the circumstances, the trial Judge had arrived at the correct finding—that the applicant was entitled to special damages in the sum of Kshs. 31.5 million.
The Court of Appeal: The Question of Certification for Further Appeal
7Being aggrieved, the respondent decided to move to this Court on a further appeal via Civil Application No. SUP. 19 of 2014 UR 13/2014 , and sought certification that its intended appeal involves matters of general public importance. Its application before the Court of Appeal rested on the following grounds:A.whether the statutory duties of the Kenya Wildlife Service as set out in Section 3A 1 of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act, encompass protection of crops, and domestic animals, from destruction by wild animals;B.whether the Kenya wildlife Service can be held liable for acts of destruction caused by wild animals in the process of migration, on the basis of the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher 1866 LR 1 Ex. 265 and in particular:I.whether the common law can be relied upon to impose a duty on the applicant, where statute is clear and unambiguous, on what the responsibilities of the applicant are;II.whether the applicant kept the migrating wild animals on its land;III.whether the applicant could reasonably foresee that the wild animals, namely wildebeest, could escape and cause mischief to the respondent’s crops;IV.whether the damage caused by wild animals to respondent’s crop was a remote situation, in terms of causation;C.whether the Maasai Mara Game Reserve is a National Park or Game Reserve controlled by the County Government of Narok previously Narok County Council ;CD.whether wildlife is a natural heritage in the ownership of the Government of Kenya; andE.whether it is the responsibility of the Government of Kenya to render compensation for injury and loss caused by wildlife to a private person’s property.PARAGRAPH 9.
8The Court of Appeal Mwera, Mwilu & Otieno-Odek, JJA , by a Ruling delivered on 3rd July, 2015, granted leave to the respondent herein to appeal to the Supreme Court, pronouncing itself as follows paragraphs 20, 21 :
9It is this grant of leave by the Appellate Court, that is contested by the applicant, who now seeks a review of the grant of certification for ultimate appeal in the Supreme Court.
Application before the Supreme Court
10.The Originating Motion was filed in this Court under certificate of urgency on 17th July, 2015, coming up before Lady Justice Kalpana Rawal DCJ on 20th July, 2015. Such a certificate was not granted; the matter came up before the Deputy Registrar, and on 19th August, 2015 the parties recorded a consent, that the matter be determined solely on the basis of their written submissions, without an oral hearing. Subsequently, upon the matter being certified as having attained compliance by the Deputy Registrar, it came up before the learned Deputy Chief Justice who on 7th December, 2015, constituted the Bench herein to determine it.
Parties’ Submissions.
Applicant
11The applicant was represented by the firm of Gordon Ogola, Kipkoech & Co. Advocates, and its submissions dated 13th August 2015 were filed in this Court on 14th August, 2015 together with a list of authorities. Learned counsel submitted that the questions framed by the Court of Appeal for determination fall short of the criteria set out under Article 163 4 b of the Constitution.
12Counsel submitted that the learned Judges of the Appellate Court did not have an occasion to consider the proceedings in the High Court; and that by Section 3 A i of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act, the respondent is obligated to compensate the applicant, or any other person, for loss or damage caused by wildlife, as held by the High Court?
13Citing the principles laid down by this Court in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v. Giovani Gnecchi Ruscone [2013] eKL, the applicant submitted that no complex point of law arises in this matter, justifying an appeal, and the certification by the Appellate Court ought to be reversed. It was urged that, the fact that Kenya Wildlife Service is a party to this matter is not sufficient ground for this matter to be treated as being of general public importance.
14The applicant submitted that this is an old matter from the High Court at Nakuru, of 2002, and its real issue of general public importance, is the call for expeditious disposal, in the terms of Article 159 2 b of the current Constitution. Counsel invoked the trite principles that litigation must come to an end, and that the winning litigant is entitled to justice for the wrongs suffered. It was urged that the Originating Motion of 17th July, 2015 be allowed, and the certification by the Appellate Court overturned.
Respondent
15The respondent was represented by the firm of Hamiliton Harrison & Mathews, Advocates, and filed its submissions on 7th August, 2015. It also sought to rely on the affidavit of Thomas Ogola, its Legal Officer, sworn on 4th August, 2015 and filed on 5th August, 2015.
16Learned counsel submitted that the nature of the four issues framed by the Court of Appeal does, indeed, transcend the private interest, as had been quite rightly perceived by the Appellate Court.
17The respondent submitted that the principles governing matters for further appeal, as laid down in Hermanus, had duly guided the Court of Appeal, leading to the framing of the four matters of general public importance, for consideration by this Court. Counsel urged that the applicant had not demonstrated to this Court that the said matters do not meet the threshold for “matter of general public importance”.
Analysis And Determination
18We recall that on 19th August, 2015, when this matter was mentioned before the Deputy Registrar, learned counsel for both parties were present: Mr. Kipkoech for the applicant; and Mr. Mungara for the respondent. The proceedings on that occasion run in part as follows:
19Hence it was the consent of the parties, that oral submissions be dispensed with, and the matter be determined on the basis of the written submissions filed by the parties.
20.From the Originating Motion and the supporting affidavit thereto; the replying affidavit by the respondent; and the written submissions by both parties: the single issue before this Court for determination is, whether a basis has been laid for it to overturn the certification by the Court of Appeal, and to revoke the leave granted to the respondent to file an ultimate appeal before this Court.
21Both parties filed synoptic submissions in this matter, after expressly waiving their right s to oral hearing. The applicant’s main contention is that the Appellate Court’s certification was based on a compromised view of relevant issues, the Court of Appeal not having clearly observed the facts from the High Court, or the Appellate Court’s record.
22To the contrary, the respondent urged that the Appellate Court did, indeed, consider he relevant records, quite apart from adverting to pertinent guiding precedents, such as: Hermanus; and Malcom Bell—arriving at the conclusion that the four framed issues, indeed, met the threshold for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
23It is worth noting that, although brought under Article 163 4 b of the Constitution, this is an application that seeks to review a grant of certification by the Court of Appeal. As such it falls well within the provisions of Article 163 5 of the Constitution, which is the right article to be cited. Article 163 5 provides:
24However, as this Court has previously held in Hermanus, Article 163 4 b is to be read conjunctively with Article 163 5 . On that basis, it properly devolves to this Court to consider the Appellate Court Ruling that granted certification.
25It is a general principle of evidence, now codified [see Section 107 of the Evidence Act Cap. 80, Laws of Kenya ], that he who alleges, has the burden of proof. Hence the onus rests on the applicant, in this application, to set out the shortcomings in the Appellate Court’s decision, so this Court may examine them for any fault of the kind alleged.
26Both parties are in agreement on the factual background to the case, from the High Court hearing, to the Court of Appeal’s finding on the primary cause. It is the findings of the Court of Appeal on certification, that is now before us for review. In seeking certification before the Court of Appeal, the respondent set out the issues as follows:
27The Court of Appeal did evaluate the foregoing issues on the basis of the principles in Hermanus, firstly by considering what constitutes a matter of general public importance, as follows paragraph 15 :
28The appellate Court then proceeded to recount the governing principles in the determination of matter s of general public importance, as stated in the decision of this Court in Hermanus, while taking note of the Malcom Bell case, in which the Court consolidated the principles founded in both the majority and the minority opinions in Hermanus. In this context, which bears cogency in all respect, in our view, the Court of Appeal proceeded to evaluate the case before it, making specific findings as follows paragraph 16 :
29The Serengeti Wildebeest migration is a phenomenal occurrence that happens annually. The wildlife movement is large-scale, as animals march over the borders of Kenya and Tanzania. The occurrence is swift, as the animals traverse the land in strength and haste, to escape the imminent danger of crocodiles waiting to prey on them, in the waters of the Mara River. So spectacular is this process of migration: judicial notice is to be taken that it has been widely perceived as an eighth wonder of the world. With such a large-scale wildlife motion annually, major environmental and related impacts are unavoidable, and we would perceive no fault, with respect, in the view of such a phenomenon as was taken by the Appellate Court.
30.The migration will recur over and over again; and the burden of its impacts will fall on all farmers in the affected areas. So it is to be expected that over the years, so many other suits may be lodged before the Courts, with parties seeking a resolution to conflicts occasioned by the periodic wildlife migration. Evidently, the annual migration of wildlife should be perceived as a matter of general public importance.
31The learned Appellate Court Judges did make the following apposite remarks paras 17,18 :
32The applicant in its submissions on record, has disclosed no fault in the Appellate Court’s perception on this question. This Court for its part, and with respect, holds the Appellate Court’s view to exemplify the best course of reasoning.
33We found limited merit in the main thrust of the applicant’s case: that the Appellate Court had not duly considered the Judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal on the substantive suit. To the contrary, the Ruling of the Court of Appeal is emphatic on the terms of the substantive decision. There had indeed been a proper evaluation of the reasoning of the High Court and the Appellate Court. Let us recall, for instance, that the Appellate Court in granting the certificate for further appeal, thus pronounced itself paragraph 19 :
34Clearly therefore, the applicant has failed to show that the Court of Appeal erred in certifying the matter as one of general public importance, and in granting leave to appeal to this Court. This is a matter that draws considerable public interest. KWS was found liable by both superior Courts. If in the event, KWS pays every year for the damage caused by wildebeest migration, it will follow that the periodic disbursements by this State Corporation will be an accountable element in public funds. The expenditure of public funds is a matter of public interest and, if it is to be an annual obligation, this calls for clear budgetary arrangements, in line with the Constitution; that is to say, a matter of public importance.
35It is thus necessary to make a determination as regards the responsibility of Government, if at all, to recompense private persons for damages occasioned by wild animals in the National and/or Game Reserves. Besides, a significant issue was raised by KWS, when it questioned the status of the Maasai Mara as a ‘Game Reserve’ or a ‘National Reserve’. The determination of this question has vital public implications. If a finding is made that it is a National Park, then the KWS position is that it may be liable to pay compensation, as National Parks fall within the management of national government. However, KWS contends that if it is a ‘Game Reserve’, which it believes to be the case, then it falls under the management of the devolved Narok County Government, by virtue of the new Constitution, and so KWS has no responsibility for damage caused by wildlife.
36This Court has held that with the dawn of the current Constitution, certain transitional matters may fall within the category of “matters of general public importance”. In the case of Town Council of Awendo v. Nelson Oduor Onyango & 13 Others, Misc. Application No. 49 of 2014, the Court thus pronounced itself, in relation to the certification of matters for ultimate appeal paragraph 35 :
37The determination of whether the Maasai Mara is a ‘National Park’ under the management of the national government, or a ‘Game Park’ under the Narok County Government, is in our view, such a transitional political-economic-social-cum-legal issue.
38Consequently, this Court finds no cause to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeal as it made the grant of certification. We are, besides, in agreement with the Appellate Court as regards the issues for determination in the intended appeal, namely:A.whether Section 3A i of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act as amended imposes a liability on the part of Kenya wildlife Service to compensate any person for loss or destruction to crops caused by wildlife;B.whether breach of Section 3A i of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act Cap 376, Laws of Kenya attracts the liability on the part of Kenya Wildlife Service to compensate any person for loss or destruction to crops, caused by wildlife;C.whether there is a common law obligation under the principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 and the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex. 265, on the part of Kenya Wildlife Service to compensate any person for damage or destruction caused by wildlife;D.whether the damage caused by migrating wildlife is an act of God, and the loss lies where it falls.
Conclusion And Orders
39The succinct profile of relevant issues herein, as it emerges from the submissions and analysis, leads us inevitably to the following Orders:
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2016.P. K. TUNOI M. K. IBRAHIMJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTJ. B. OJWANG S. C. WANJALAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTS. N. NDUNGUJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTI certify that this is a true copy of the originalRegistarSupreme Court