Ramji & 2 others v Kenya Power and Lighting Company (Environment and Land Case 109 of 2015) [2023] KEELC 407 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Landowners lost a trespass case against Kenya Power because a 1956 wayleave attached to their land and they couldn't prove their claimed damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiffs' land
No trespass was proved; the power line was constructed pursuant to a 1956 wayleave which was an encumbrance on the land and bound the Plaintiffs' title acquired in 2010 in part substitution of Grant IR 95708/1
The court found the wayleave dated 30th November 1956 recorded as MK/1, evidenced by a letter and maps. The Plaintiffs' own Certificate of Title referenced special conditions in Grant IR 95708/1 and part substitution, showing they took subject to pre-existing encumbrances. They bought in 2010 with an existing power line, immediately sought rerouting, and did not comply with rerouting conditions. The Ringera decision was distinguished on its facts.
What damages, if any, are payable
No damages were awarded because the Plaintiffs failed to prove the projected loss of Ksh.500,000 per day
PW1 admitted the godowns were not yet constructed and offered only a projection of revenue. No approved building plans or expert valuation of the alleged projected loss of income were produced. Damages must be proved to be awarded.
Burden of proof on the trespass claim
The Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden under section 107 of the Evidence Act to show the defendant constructed fresh power lines on the land
Under section 107 of the Evidence Act the party alleging must prove. PW1 admitted an existing power line at purchase; the defendant's wayleave evidence (1956 letter and maps) was uncontroverted. The court also noted the prior Nairobi ELC 615 of 2011 litigation involving the same power line and parcel.
Legal principles established
#- A wayleave attaching to land constitutes an encumbrance that binds subsequent purchasers; a fresh grant of consent is unnecessary for a pre-existing power line
- Proof of ownership is prima facie proof of possession and trespass is actionable at the instance of the person in possession
- Damages must be proved; projected income without building plans or expert evidence is not recoverable
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' suit with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land L.R No.11895/50
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kiruki v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc (Environment and Land Petition E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2533 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2533 (KLR)4 May 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ramji & 2 others v Kenya Power and Lighting Company (Environment and Land Case 109 of 2015) [2023] KEELC 407 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the excerpt (Plaint dated April 7, 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/407/eng@2023-02-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.