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 extract· [2021] KEELC 3940 (KLR)

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company & another v Maryann Sheikh Abdikadir & & 121 others; Fruitful Farms Limited (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 3940 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 March 2021
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
2,238 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kajiado court allowed Kenya Power's transmission line project to proceed, directing affected landowners to pursue compensation instead of blocking construction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (Christine Ochieng J) determined two interlocutory applications arising in a compulsory acquisition/wayleave suit concerning the construction of electricity transmission lines. First, the 78th and 79th Defendants sought an injunction pending appeal restraining the Plaintiff from constructing transmission lines on Kajiado/Lorngusua/2338, being aggrieved by a Ruling of 21st September 2020 which had allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the project. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and related authorities on injunctions pending appeal, the court held that the land had already been gazetted for compulsory acquisition for a public utility, that the parties had been directed to negotiate compensation, and that no prima facie case had been established; the Applicants were directed to urgently engage the State on compensation. Second, Fruitful Farms Limited, a family horticultural business operating on land owned by the 94th and 95th Defendants, sought joinder as a Defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2), citing massive investments including boreholes, a generator and a valuation of Kshs. 83,381,120. The court, applying Joseph Njau Kingori, found the Applicant was neither a necessary nor proper party since the registered owners were already parties, and that developments on the land are considered when assessing compensation under Rule 3 of the Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) Rules 2017; its concerns should be raised at the compensation inquiry. Both applications were dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Injunction pending appeal

Holding

Refused - no prima facie case established

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and related authorities, the court found the Applicants' land had already been gazetted for compulsory acquisition for a public utility, and the earlier Ruling directed parties to negotiate compensation. The Applicants had not updated the court on the progress of the appeal. Granting an injunction would therefore impede a public utility project without demonstrated merit.

p. 2
02

Joinder of Fruitful Farms Limited as Defendant

Holding

Refused - Applicant is not a necessary or proper party

Reasoning

Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Joseph Njau Kingori, an intending defendant must be necessary/proper and its presence necessary for complete adjudication. The Applicant farms on land owned by the 94th and 95th Defendants, who are already parties; developments on the land are considered during assessment of compensation under Rule 3 of the Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) Rules 2017. The Applicant's concerns should be raised at the compensation inquiry.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An injunction pending appeal will not issue where the appeal is frivolous or where the injunction would inflict greater injustice than it would avoid.
  • Compulsory acquisition focusses on the land while developments thereon are considered during assessment of compensation/damages.
  • Principles for joinder of an intending party: necessary party, proper party, relief flowing from the defendant, decree enforceable without him, and presence necessary for effective adjudication.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the 78th and 79th Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 24th October 2020 seeking an injunction pending appeal
  2. 2.Dismissal of Fruitful Farms Limited's Chamber Summons Application dated 13th January 2021 seeking joinder as a Defendant
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 50, 159
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6; Order 1 Rule 10(2) and 25
  • Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) Rules 2017Rule 3

Cases cited (5)

  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Madhupaper International Limited vs Kerr
    (1985) eKLR
  • Patricia Njeri & 3 Others v National Museum of Kenya
    [2004] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Joseph Njau Kingori vs. Robert Maina Chege & 3 others
    [2002] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company & another v Maryann Sheikh Abdikadir & & 121 others; Fruitful Farms Limited (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 3940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3940/eng@2021-03-22

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