Golden Lane Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited & another [2018] KEELC 1478 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court dismissed a landowner's bid to block KETRACO's transmission line works because a signed easement agreement permitted entry and compensation had already been paid.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No. The Petitioner was the registered proprietor but had executed an unchallenged easement agreement permitting entry and felling of trees within the trace upon notice; lack of notice by the 2nd Respondent could not amount to trespass by the 1st Respondent
The court found it undisputed that the Petitioner owned the suit land and had signed an easement agreement with the 1st Respondent on 14th July 2017, which it never challenged. The agreement allowed the grantee to fell trees obstructing the line after notice, and disputes were to be referred to arbitration. Given the agreement, the alleged lack of notice could not constitute trespass by the 1st Respondent, and the complaint against the 2nd Respondent should have been reported to authorities for prosecution.
Whether the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
No. The Petitioner was already compensated Kshs. 24,960,000 under the easement agreement and its alleged injuries were speculative
Having been compensated for the limited loss of use of the land, and given the easement agreement expressly permitted the 1st Respondent to enter and cut trees within the trace, the Petitioner could not demonstrate actual, substantial and demonstrable injury. Applying Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen, speculative injury or unfounded fear does not suffice; the burden was on the applicant to demonstrate the nature and extent of the injury.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience did not tilt in favour of the Petitioner
On the third Giella principle, the court was not in doubt that the balance of convenience favoured the Respondents, given the subsisting easement agreement, the completed and energized transmission line, and the compensation already paid. This third limb was determined briefly on the evidence presented by the parties.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of temporary injunctions: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience where in doubt
- Where an easement agreement contains an arbitration clause, the parties must first resort to arbitration before lodging a complaint in court
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated the 22nd January, 2018 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; application brought pursuant to Order 40 rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Golden Lane Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited & another [2018] KEELC 1478 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition (Notice of Motion dated 22nd January, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1478/eng@2018-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.