Stephen Karanja Chege v Rural Electrification Authority (Environment & Land Case 869 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2687 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered the Rural Electrification Authority to remove power lines from private land and pay Kshs 5 million because it never got the owner's permission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claim is time barred
The limitation objection was res judicata, having been heard and dismissed by Gacheru J in a ruling dated 14/6/2019 that was never appealed or reviewed.
The defendant had already raised a limitation objection before Lady Justice Gacheru, who dismissed it with costs by a ruling dated 14/6/2019. That ruling was neither appealed nor reviewed and remained in force. The court therefore held the renewed objection in final submissions was res judicata and unavailable. Additionally, a continuing trespass founds a fresh cause of action daily.
Whether trespass was proved
Trespass was proved - the defendant erected power lines on the plaintiff's land without wayleave consent or notice, and adduced no evidence to rebut the claim.
The plaintiff proved registered ownership and led unchallenged evidence, corroborated by correspondence from Kenya Power and REA, that the defendant erected power lines without consent. The defendant, though admitting it executed the project, called no witness and in submissions did not deny the entry. The court found the trespass acknowledged and proved.
Whether the power lines should be relocated
The erection was illegal under Section 46 of the Energy Act since no permission, particulars of entry or compensation were given; relocation was ordered within 90 days, with eviction in default.
Section 46 of the Energy Act requires prior permission of the owner, by notice with particulars of entry, before laying supply lines. The plaintiff led unchallenged evidence that no permission was sought, no particulars given and no compensation paid, rendering the entry illegal. The court ordered removal and relocation within 90 days, defaulting to eviction.
Quantum of damages for trespass
General damages of Kshs 5 Million awarded; the Kshs 60 Million compensation claim dismissed for want of proof (no valuation report) and as an alternative claim.
The court exercised its discretion judiciously, weighing that only part of the land was affected (dairy farming continued), that the trespass was continuous and unremedied, and that the defendant's lack of serious commitment to removal made litigation necessary. The plaintiff's failure to produce a valuation report defeated the Kshs 60M claim.
Legal principles established
#- Entry onto land to lay an electric supply line requires prior permission of the owner, by way of notice accompanied by particulars of entry
- Continuing trespass gives rise to a fresh cause of action from day to day for as long as it continues
- Submissions cannot take the place of evidence; a defendant who calls no witness leaves the plaintiff's evidence unchallenged, though the plaintiff still bears the burden of proof
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to remove and relocate its power poles and cables from the Plaintiff's property namely Gatamaiyu/kamuchege/69 within the period of 90 days. In default eviction to ensue.
- 2.Prayer b (compensation of Kshs. 60,000,000/=) is declined.
- 3.The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff the sum of Kshs 5 Million being general damages for trespass.
- 4.The Plaintiff shall be paid the costs of the suit and interest on the damages award at Court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction in trespass to land; Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Karanja Chege v Rural Electrification Authority (Environment & Land Case 869 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2687 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (Plaint dated December 14, 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2687/eng@2022-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.