The right to property protection & state actions affecting private property must be legally and procedurally justified: The Case of Kenya Wildlife Service v Sea Star Malindi Ltd (Petition No. E022 of 2024)

Legal Summary of the Case: Kenya Wildlife Service v Sea Star Malindi Ltd
Supreme Court of Kenya Petition No.: E022 of 2024 [2025] KESC 42 (1 July 2025)
Date of Judgment: 1 July 2025
Bench: Koome CJ, Mwilu DCJ, Ibrahim SCJ, Wanjala SCJ, Lenaola SCJ, Ouko SCJ

1. Background

• In 1997, KWS stopped Sea Star Malindi Ltd from constructing a hotel near Malindi Marine Park, citing environmental protection concerns.
• Sea Star sued KWS for violating its property rights. The Environment and Land Court (ELC) awarded Ksh 120 million in compensation and damages.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the ELC ruling in 2024.
• KWS appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing procedural and substantive errors.

2. Issues for Determination

1. Was the Court of Appeal correct in affirming KWS’s liability and the damages awarded?
2. Was there a risk of double compensation, considering Sea Star had previously been awarded Ksh 709 million in a separate case involving Kilifi County Council?
3. Was the Court of Appeal’s handling of the case procedurally sound?

3. Judgment Summary

Court's️ Findings:

• The Court quashed the Ksh 93 million award issued by the Court of Appeal.
• Held that the Court of Appeal erred by affirming damages without fully analyzing liability and potential overlap with previous compensation.
• Found that granting relief before determining liability was premature and inconsistent with principles of due process.
• Emphasized the importance of avoiding “double compensation” from public bodies for the same harm.

 Orders:

• The case was remitted back to the Court of Appeal for:
• A fresh determination of KWS’s liability, and
• Reassessment of damages, with caution against duplication of prior awards.
• Costs were not awarded, pending the fresh appellate outcome. 

4. Legal Significance

 Constitutional & Administrative Law:

• Reinforces the right to property protection under Article 40 of the Constitution.
• Clarifies that state actions affecting private property must be legally and procedurally justified.

Damages & Double Recovery:

• Sets precedent that plaintiffs must disclose all related compensation claims.
• Courts must factor in prior awards to ensure that litigants are not compensated twice for the same loss.

Procedural Justice:

• Confirms that liability must be conclusively determined before awarding compensation.
• Underlines the role of appellate courts in carefully vetting the foundation of remedies granted by lower courts. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court did not absolve KWS of liability but required a fresh, full reconsideration of both fault and compensation. The decision highlights judicial caution where public funds are involved and ensures fairness to both private litigants and state bodies.