Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) v Kibotu Limited (Environment & Land Case 118 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 4259 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 June 2025
GOG. M. A Ongondo
1,944 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a money-dispute application, confirming it cannot resolve accounting questions—those belong elsewhere.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff/applicant, by Notice of Motion dated 31st January 2025, sought variation or setting aside of a decree and warrants of attachment and proclamation dated 23rd January 2025, together with an order that the Deputy Registrar take an audit or account of monies paid to the defendant. The application, supported by an affidavit of Florence Mitey, Company Secretary of the applicant, asserted that the decretal sum of Kshs. 14,263,000/- from the judgment of 16th March 2022 had been fully paid, including a payment of Kshs. 6,002,253/- and a balance of Kshs. 8,433,802/- on 2nd September 2022, that an excess of Kshs. 171,055/- had been paid, and that execution was irregular because interest was not payable given the stay of execution orders. The respondent, through a Replying Affidavit sworn by R. R. Mwetich, conceded the principal sum was settled but claimed interest of Kshs. 755,681/- accrued during the stay periods, since the stay merely postponed enforcement without suspending the accrual of interest. The court framed two issues - whether the application was merited and what just orders should issue. It observed that the decretal sum was admitted to be settled and that the true dispute was one of accounts. Applying the jurisdictional jurisprudence of the superior courts, and notably Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, the court held that the ELC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 13 of the ELC Act and Section 150 of the Land Act does not extend to accounting questions. Holding itself devoid of jurisdiction, the court struck out the application and ordered the plaintiff/applicant to bear the costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application is merited for granting the orders sought therein
  2. 2.Just orders to issue herein

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over an application concerning accounts and interest on a decretal sum where execution has issued

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction because the dispute is one of accounts and does not relate to the use of land under Article 162(2)(b)

Reasoning

Although the application sought to set aside warrants of attachment and proclamation issued in the suit, the court found the real dispute concerned accounts - whether interest on the decretal sum was paid. Relying on Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, accounting questions do not fall within the ELC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 13 of the ELC Act or Section 150 of the Land Act, so the application was struck out.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and a court cannot exercise jurisdiction not conferred by written law
  • A court without jurisdiction must down its tools
  • Lack of jurisdiction renders a decision void rather than voidable
  • The jurisdiction of the ELC does not extend to the determination of accounting questions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 31st January 2025 is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.Costs of the application be borne by the plaintiff/applicant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 read with Section 13 of the ELC Act and Section 150 of the Land Act

Relief refused

#

Varying or setting aside the decree and warrants of attachment and proclamation dated 23rd January 2025

The court lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was one of accounts, not use of land

p. 4

Order that the Deputy Registrar takes audit or account for monies paid to the defendant and renders an account

Accounting questions fall outside the jurisdiction of the ELC

p. 4

Costs

Costs of the application be borne by the plaintiff/applicant.

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 issues for determination herein do not constitute use of land within the meaning of Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Therefore, this court is devoid of jurisdiction to hear and determine the same.
p. 4Lack of jurisdiction of the ELC over accounting disputes
the instant application originated by way of a Notice of Motion dated 31st January 2025 and lodged herein on 31st January 2025 is hereby struck out.
p. 5Final orders - striking out of the application
Costs of the application be borne by the plaintifi/applicant.
p. 5Costs order
jurisdiction is everything, without which the court can do nothing else and must down its tools
p. 4Primacy of jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) v Kibotu Limited (Environment & Land Case 118 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 4259 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4259/eng@2025-06-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.