Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Kitale ELC notice of motion dated 17th March 2014)· [2014] KEELC 295 (KLR)

John Chege Njoroge & another v Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd [2014] KEELC 295 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 July 2014
EOE. Obaga
1,159 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, registered owners of LR No. Kakamega/Kongoni/805, moved the Environment and Land Court at Kitale by notice of motion dated 17th March 2014 seeking an injunction to restrain the respondent, a state-owned electricity transmission company, from trespassing on, entering or interfering with their land, where the respondent had dug concrete bases for steel power transmission poles for the Lessos-Tororo power line. The applicants asserted they had never granted permission and had not been compensated for the approximate half acre taken. The respondent, through a replying affidavit by Joel O. Nyamweya, explained that the project began in 2010, that over 600 parcels were surveyed as affected, that compensation for crops and structures had been paid where applicable, and that the suit property was to be valued by the National Land Commission with compensation to follow. Stephen Njoroge Chege, the previous owner and father of the applicants, swore a supplementary affidavit contending he was never consulted. Applying the settled interlocutory injunction principles, Obaga J found the applicants had title but had not demonstrated irreparable injury not compensable in damages, since the compulsory acquisition process had commenced and compensation was guaranteed. The court took judicial notice of the National Land Commission's press advertisements notifying affected owners, and held the balance of convenience favoured the donor-funded project of public benefit. The application for injunction was dismissed with costs to the respondent on 30th July 2014.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants established a case for confirmation of the interlocutory injunction

Holding

The application failed on the second and third Giella limbs; the applicants have title but have not shown irreparable injury compensable only by injunction, and the balance of convenience favours the public power project.

Reasoning

The applicants are undisputedly the registered owners, and no compensation has yet been paid. However, the compulsory acquisition process for the Lessos-Tororo transmission line has commenced, valuation by the National Land Commission is pending, and compensation is guaranteed under the statutory process. Damages would therefore be an adequate remedy. Stopping the donor-funded project would be unfair and uneconomical given the benefit of additional power to the national grid.

p. 2
02

Whether affected landowners were notified of the acquisition

Holding

The court found, on judicial notice, that notification was issued notwithstanding the absence of the advertisement in the replying affidavit.

Reasoning

The previous owner contended he was never consulted. The court held that the National Land Commission must notify affected persons when acquiring land for public use, and that affected owners along the Lessos-Tororo line were advertised and notified. The mere fact that the advertisement was not annexed to the replying affidavit does not mean no notification was issued; the court took judicial notice of the Commission's press advertisements.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Once the process of compulsory acquisition of land for a public purpose is set in motion, it cannot be stopped by injunction; the affected owner's remedy is compensation under the prescribed legal process.
  • The established Giella principles govern the grant of interlocutory injunctions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants' application for injunction is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Chege Njoroge & another v Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd [2014] KEELC 295 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment (Kitale ELC notice of motion dated 17th March 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/295/eng@2014-07-30

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