Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

NORMAN MUMO vs KENYA POWER & LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED [1995] KECA 107 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL MISC APPL 300 OF 95 NORMAN MUMO ...........................................APPLICANT AND KENYA POWER & LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED................RESPONDENT RULING OF THE COURT This is an application under rule 5(2(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules for a mandatory injunction directing the Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (KPLC) to restore power supply to the premises occupied by the applicant on Plot L.R. No.88/1 Barsheba, Mombasa North. Mbogholi J dismissed the applicant’s application in the superior court. Our provisional perusal of the material documents in this case indicates that the applicant procured the supply of electricity to his premises irregularly by improperly enlisting the assistance of some of the employees of KPLC who had no authority to sign the relevant documents, and have since been dismissed from the service of KPLC. On this evidence we cannot see that the applicant has an arguable appeal. This being our attitude, though only provisional, we do not have to consider the damage, if any, the applicant will suffer if the injunction can file a suit for damages if he can prove that there has been a breach of a valid contract to supply electricity to his premises. Such damages cannot be beyond the capacity of KPLC to pay. In the circumstances the application fails and is dismissed with costs. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of December, 1995. R. O. KWACH JUDGE OF APPEAL R. S. C. OMOLO JUDGE OF APPEAL A. A. LAKHA JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.