Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedKerugoya MCELC No. E116 of 2023 (Appeal)

Kenya Power and Lighting Company v Stephen (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4614 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 June 2025
2,777 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's ELC ruled that disputes over electricity infrastructure on private land must first go through EPRA and the Energy Tribunal, not court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya (J. M. Mutungi, ELC Judge) allowed an appeal against a ruling of Hon. G. W. Kirugumi, Principal Magistrate, delivered on 14th February 2024 in Kerugoya MCELC No. E116 of 2023. The Respondent, as plaintiff, had sued the Appellant, an electricity distribution licensee, alleging trespass over land parcel Mutira/Kiaga/51, where the Appellant's agents erected power poles and high-voltage lines in January and March 2023. She sought removal of the infrastructure and compensation for 3,760 square metres of reserved area. The Appellant raised a preliminary objection that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, contending the dispute fell under the Energy Act, 2019 and its mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms - complaint to EPRA, appeal to the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal, and a further appeal on a point of law. The Magistrate dismissed the objection, holding the matter was a land/trespass dispute for the ELC. On appeal, the Court, applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co, Kibos Distillers, Nicholus v Attorney General and United Millers v KEBS, held that the exhaustion doctrine applied and the Respondent should first have pursued the statutory mechanisms. The Magistrate was found to have assumed jurisdiction she did not possess. The appeal was allowed, the ruling set aside, the preliminary objection upheld, the suit struck out with costs, and the Appellant awarded the costs of the appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Learned Magistrate erred in holding that the Subordinate Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit
  2. 2.Whether the Respondent's trespass claim fell within the Lower Court's jurisdiction or ought to have been addressed through the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Energy Act, 2019 (EPRA and the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal)

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court over a trespass claim arising from installation of electricity infrastructure

Holding

The Subordinate Court lacked jurisdiction; the dispute fell within the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms of EPRA and the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal under the Energy Act, 2019.

Reasoning

The Respondent's claim concerned entry onto private land and erection of power poles and lines by a licensed distributor, matters regulated by the Energy Act, 2019, including Sections 170-172 on entry upon notice. The Act establishes a mandatory three-tier mechanism: complaint to EPRA, appeal to the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal, and appeal to the High Court on a point of law. The Respondent bypassed these mechanisms and the Learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the Preliminary Objection.

p. 6
02

Duty of a first appellate court

Holding

A first appeal requires reconsideration and fresh evaluation of the evidence, the court not being bound by the findings of fact below.

Reasoning

Relying on Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others (1968) EA 123, the Court held that on a first appeal it must re-evaluate the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions where the lower court applied wrong principles or made findings unsupported by the evidence.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a statute establishes an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, that procedure must be exhausted before invoking the Court's jurisdiction.
  • A claim disguised as trespass cannot be used to bypass the specialised dispute resolution machinery under the Energy Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed
  2. 2.Ruling of the Learned Magistrate set aside and substituted with an order allowing the Appellant's Preliminary Objection
  3. 3.Respondent's suit before the Magistrate's Court struck out
  4. 4.Appellant awarded the costs of the suit before the Magistrate's Court and the costs of the Appeal

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court, Kerugoya
MCELC No. E116 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (first appellate jurisdiction over the Subordinate Court ruling)

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 Ruling by the Learned Magistrate is set aside and substituted with an order allowing the Preliminary Objection and striking out the Respondent’s suit before the Magistrate’s Court with costs. The Appellant is awarded the costs of the Appeal.
p. 6Final orders
It is now an established norm that when there is a statutory procedure for resolving a dispute, that procedure should be followed and fully exhausted before the aggrieved party considers going to Court.
p. 6Exhaustion of statutory remedies
The Learned Magistrate in this matter arrogated herself a jurisdiction that she never possessed and fell into error in dismissing the Preliminary Objection taken by the Appellant.
p. 6Jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Power and Lighting Company v Stephen (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4614 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kerugoya MCELC No. E116 of 2023 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4614/eng@2025-06-19

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