Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed(not stated in extract; ELC suit filed by Plaint dated 21st September 2017)· [2021] KEELC 950 (KLR)

Nyabochwa Obiero v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited & another [2021] KEELC 950 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 November 2021
1,805 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya Power's attempt to force a trespass case to the Energy Tribunal failed, confirming land courts can hear trespass claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kisii (J.M. Onyango, J) determines a Preliminary Objection dated 23rd October 2017 raised by the 1st Defendant against the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant trespassed onto land parcel NORTH MUGIRANGO/IKONGE/890 by installing electricity transmission lines and poles to connect power for a third party, Nelson Ongere Nyabware, and sought damages and costs. The Defendant objected that the suit was misconceived because the Plaintiff had not complied with sections 6(1), 61(3), 107, 108 and 110(1) of the Energy Act, 2006 and Rules 2 and 4 of the Energy (Complaints and Disputes Resolution) Regulations, 2012, which required him to first lodge his complaint with the Energy Regulatory Commission and, if dissatisfied, appeal to the Energy Tribunal. The court framed a single issue: whether it lacked jurisdiction for that reason. Applying the Supreme Court's jurisdictional principles in In the Matter of Interim Independent Electoral Commission and Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S', the court examined the statutory scheme and held that the Energy Act does not deal with claims of trespass. The Plaintiff had signed no wayleave agreement, received no notice, and the Defendant removed the cables during the pendency of the suit, acknowledging the trespass and leaving the Commission with nothing to determine. The court also observed that the Defendant had indicated the suit was settled save for costs, suggesting the objection was aimed at avoiding costs. The Preliminary Objection was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC lacks jurisdiction because the Plaintiff did not first resort to the Energy Regulatory Commission and the Energy Tribunal under the Energy Act, 2006

Holding

The Preliminary Objection fails; the court has jurisdiction because the cause of action is trespass to land, which the Energy Act does not cover

Reasoning

Sections 6, 61(3), 107, 108 and 110(1) of the Energy Act and Rules 2 and 4 of the 2012 Regulations cover disputes such as charges, deposits, illegal use of energy, defects in apparatus, billing, wayleaves and easements. The Plaintiff's claim is in trespass: the Defendant entered his land and installed power lines without notice or any wayleave agreement. The Energy Act does not deal with claims for trespass, so the statutory forum does not oust the ELC's jurisdiction. The Defendant also removed the cables in 2018, acknowledging the trespass, leaving nothing for the Commission to determine.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court cannot take any step without jurisdiction; once jurisdiction is successfully challenged, the court must stop
  • Jurisdiction flows from the law and a court may not arrogate to itself jurisdiction through interpretation where legislation is clear
  • Where a cause of action is in trespass to land, the ELC has jurisdiction notwithstanding statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms under the Energy Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Obrection is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Plaintiff
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over claims of trespass to land (court's jurisdiction over disputes relating to land); objection grounded on sections 6(1), 61(3), 107, 108 and 110(1) of the Energy Act, 2006 and Rules 2 and 4 of the Energy (Complaints and Disputes Resolution) Regulations, 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyabochwa Obiero v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited & another [2021] KEELC 950 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). (not stated in extract; ELC suit filed by Plaint dated 21st September 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/950/eng@2021-11-09

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