John Kiragu Kimani v Rural Electrification Authority [2018] KEELC 810 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that installing a power line without a landowner's consent is trespass, awarding over Kshs. 1.2 million in damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiff's land
Yes - a continuing trespass. No way leave consent, permission or notice under section 46 of the Energy Act was ever sought or obtained from the Plaintiff.
The Defendant pleaded that it had obtained way leave consent, but its own witness (Caroline Ochichi) admitted that no way leave agreement was signed and that she only assumed consent had been granted. The court held that neither consent nor the notice contemplated by section 46 of the Energy Act, 2006 was given, leading irresistibly to the conclusion of trespass. The trespass was continuing, being the presence of the power line on the land.
Compensation payable for the 300 felled trees
Special damages of Kshs. 981,939/- awarded based on the Plaintiff's valuation, as the Defendant's unsigned and undated valuation report was given no probative value.
The Plaintiff's valuer applied the Kenya Forest Service Guidelines of 2012 using volumetric costing to value 300 trees at Kshs. 981,939/=. The Defendant's valuation of Kshs. 201,000/- was rejected because the report was unsigned and undated and the Ministry of Agriculture guidelines said to support the Kshs. 670 per tree rate were not produced in court. The Plaintiff's valuation therefore remained unchallenged and was upheld in its entirety.
General damages for trespass
General damages of Kshs. 250,000/- awarded for the restriction on the Plaintiff's use of the land beneath the power line.
Trespass is actionable per se. Although the Plaintiff can still cultivate crops under the power line, his use of the land is restricted in respect of building and growing trees. The court, doing the best it could, assessed reasonable general damages at Kshs. 250,000/- in the circumstances.
Mandatory injunction to remove the high voltage line
Refused. The court directed the Defendant to negotiate proper way leave agreements under section 148 of the Land Act, 2012 within 90 days instead.
The power line supplies Tuthu Market and the public along the Kanyenyaini-Tuthu line. Removing it would incapacitate the whole line and cause untold suffering to the populace and public facilities. The justice of the case required the Defendant to be given time to negotiate the appropriate way leave agreements with the Plaintiff as provided by law.
Costs
Costs follow the event; the successful Plaintiff was awarded costs of the suit.
Relying on section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that costs follow the event and, the Plaintiff having succeeded in his case, the Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Entry upon land to lay an electric supply line requires the prior permission of the owner under section 46 of the Energy Act; entry without such permission or notice constitutes trespass
- Every continuance of a trespass gives rise to a fresh cause of action from day to day for as long as the trespass continues
- An unsigned and undated valuation report has no probative value and cannot be relied upon in evidence
Court orders
#- 1.Special damages in the sum of Kshs. 981,939/-
- 2.General damages in the sum of Kshs 250,000/- for trespass
- 3.The Defendant directed to negotiate proper way leave agreements/rights of way with the Plaintiff as per section 148 of the Land Act, 2012 within 90 days from the date of the judgment
- 4.Either party has liberty to apply
- 5.The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the land dispute (specific provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Elgon House (2010) Ltd v Meya Agri Traders Limited (Land Case 121 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 911 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 911 (KLR)20 Feb 2026
- Grey Peak Company Limited v Kasena (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3897 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 3897 (KLR)15 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kiragu Kimani v Rural Electrification Authority [2018] KEELC 810 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Murang'a ELC Suit (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/810/eng@2018-11-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.