Wanjohi & 10 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Environment and Land Case 3 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8349 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to 100% compensation for their respective portions of land acquired by the Defendant
- 2.Whether the Court should adopt the NLC valuation or Dantu valuation to compensate the Plaintiffs
- 3.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits, special damages and punitive damages
Key legal issues
#Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to 100% compensation based on NLC valuation
No; only a wayleave was acquired, and compensation is limited to the wayleave. The NLC and Dantu valuations were rejected as post-dating the 2011 cut-off and valuing whole parcels.
The Defendant acquired only wayleaves for a transmission line, with title remaining in the Plaintiffs. NLC valued whole parcels in 2016/2017 although the project cut-off was 2011, and Dantu's valuations were likewise after the cut-off. Both valuations therefore failed to assess value at the date of acquisition or limit value to the affected portion. The Plaintiffs bought the plots at Kshs. 65,000, never developed them, and most association members accepted Kshs. 650,000. A court-ordered Kshs. 800,000 per parcel was fixed as reasonable compensation.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to mesne profits
No; the claim failed for lack of proof.
Mesne profits under Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act are profits actually received or which might with ordinary diligence have been received by a person in wrongful possession. The Plaintiffs' parcels were vacant and undeveloped, and there was no demonstration that the Defendant, a public entity, received profits from the power lines traversing the parcels. The claim was therefore not proved.
Whether the Defendant committed continuous trespass
Yes; each Plaintiff awarded Kshs. 100,000 exemplary damages for continuous trespass.
The Defendant did not deny constructing and maintaining high voltage power lines on the suit parcels while the Plaintiffs remained uncompensated. Following John Kiragu Kimani v Rural Electrification Authority, entering land without consent or notice amounts to trespass, and continued presence of the lines constituted continuous trespass justifying exemplary damages.
Legal principles established
#- Just compensation for compulsory acquisition must equate restitution and be paid promptly and in full
- 100% compensation is payable only where the owner is denied all use of the land as in compulsory acquisition, not in ordinary wayleave acquisitions
- The project cut-off date is the critical date for assessing market value in compulsory acquisition, and valuation must be limited to the portion affected by the wayleave
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the Plaintiffs in the total sum of Kshs. 9,600,000 being Kshs. 800,000 each for the 12 parcels (as itemised per plaintiff)
- 2.Exemplary damages for trespass at Kshs. 100,000 for 12 parcels
- 3.Interest on the compensation and exemplary damages at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims (Articles 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution as read with Sections 107, 110 and 112 of the Land Act raised by the parties)
Relief refused
#Claim for compensation at NLC valuation rates (total Kshs. 54,809,607.29)
The NLC and Dantu valuations were done in 2016/2017, past the 2011 project cut-off date, and valued the whole parcels rather than the wayleave only
Mesne profits at Kshs. 250,000 per acre per month
No proof of basis; the properties were never developed and the Defendant, a public entity, was not shown to be receiving profits from the power lines
Special damages of Kshs. 540,000 (valuation costs)
Not proved to the required standard
Punitive damages
Not awarded; the court instead awarded exemplary damages of Kshs. 100,000 per parcel for continuous trespass
Costs
Costs of this suit awarded to the Plaintiffs
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.
I hence find that the Plaintifis are not entitled to 100% compensation for their respective portions of land but only for the way leave acquired by the Defendant.
I will award the Plaintifis each Kshs. 800,000 as reasonable compensation for their respective parcels of land.
I find that the Defendant's actions indeed amount to continuous trespass and will award the Plaintifis' Kshs. 100,000 each for exemplary damages for continuous trespass on their respective parcels of land.
a. The total of Kshs. 9,600,000 being the sum total amounts due on the 12 parcels belonging to the Plaintifis
c) Interest on a and b above at Court rates from date of this judgement until payment in full. d. Costs of this suit
the only equitable compensation for compulsory acquisition of land should be one which equates restitution.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to twelve (12) plaintiffs and awards twelve parcels, but earlier states 'only eleven (11) Plaintifis herein remain unpaid', an internal inconsistency
The project cut-off date is variously given as 2010 and 2011 within the judgment
NLC valuation figures in the pleadings and testimonies differ from those in the final prayer (e.g. Emily Moraa NLC value Kshs. 4,724,600 in table but Kshs. 4,724,600 in prayer; Beatrice Njeri Muchiri's NLC value given as 4,722,905.00 in table but 4,724,600.00 in prayer), a minor internal inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjohi & 10 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Environment and Land Case 3 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8349/eng@2025-12-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.