NORMAN MUMO vs KENYA POWER & LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED [1995] KECA 107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to order Kenya Power to restore electricity to a customer whose connection had been obtained through unauthorised KPLC employees.
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 applicant has an arguable appeal warranting a mandatory injunction under rule 5(2)(b) to restore electricity supply
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the rule 5(2)(b) test of an arguable appeal
The application failed because, on the material documents, the applicant had irregularly procured the electricity supply through KPLC employees lacking authority to sign the relevant documents, so no arguable appeal was demonstrated
The court made a provisional perusal of the documents and found that the supply was obtained by improperly enlisting the assistance of KPLC employees who had no authority to sign the relevant documents and who had since been dismissed. On that evidence the intended appeal was not arguable, and once that threshold failed, the court did not need to consider the second limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test concerning the damage the applicant would suffer.
Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant
Having found no arguable appeal, the court declined to consider the damages limb; it noted the applicant may sue for damages for breach of a valid supply contract, which KPLC could readily pay
The court indicated that it did not have to consider the damage the applicant would suffer given its provisional view on arguability. It observed that the applicant retains the option of filing a suit for damages if he proves breach of a valid contract of electricity supply, and that such damages would not be beyond KPLC's capacity to pay.
Legal principles established
#- Under rule 5(2)(b), where the court provisionally finds the intended appeal not arguable, it need not consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy; an applicant alleging breach of a valid supply contract may be compensated in damages in a properly filed suit
Court orders
#- 1.The application under rule 5(2)(b) is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Mandatory injunction directing KPLC to restore power supply to the applicant's premises
The applicant showed no arguable appeal, having irregularly procured the electricity supply through unauthorised KPLC employees
Costs
The application fails and is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the respondent)
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.
On this evidence we cannot see that the applicant has an arguable appeal.
In the circumstances the application fails and is dismissed with costs.
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
Issues in the judgment
#The text of the ruling contains what appears to be a missing passage: the sentence about the applicant's attitude is run directly into the passage on damages, suggesting an omission in the copy ('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...')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "NORMAN MUMO vs KENYA POWER & LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED [1995] KECA 107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Civil Misc Appl 300 of 95. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/107/eng@1995-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.