Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment (Petition dated 24th April 2023)· [2024] KEELC 206 (KLR)

Vescon Properties Limited v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited (Environment & Land Petition 15 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 206 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
24 January 2024
5,616 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed you can sue a utility for trespass on your land without first going through energy regulators.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection attacking the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court at Malindi to hear the Petitioner's petition dated 24th April 2023 and a companion application for conservatory reliefs, which challenged the Respondent's entry, trespass, and installation and erection of power lines on Plot No. Kilifi/Mtwapa/407 (subdivisions 6151-6156). The Respondent invoked the doctrine of exhaustion, contending that the dispute ought first to have gone to the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority, then on appeal to the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal, and only thereafter to the High Court/ELC, citing various sections of the Energy Act, 2019, the Energy (Complaints and Disputes Resolution) Regulations, 2012, and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The Petitioner countered that constitutional issues arose under Article 40 (right to property), that the entry without consent was trespass contrary to the Trespass Act, and that wayleave rights under Section 143(4) of the Land Act did not oust the Court's jurisdiction. Makori J reviewed the exhaustion jurisprudence, tracing the Kibos litigation through the ELC, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, United Millers, and the Supreme Court's guidance in Abidha Nicholus that in a multifaceted claim a court should determine each issue within its jurisdiction. The Court held that while wayleave issues could be addressed under the Energy Act, the pleaded violation of the right to property under Article 40 lies with the ELC, with the trial question being whether the Petitioner was compensated. The Preliminary Objection was dismissed with costs on 24th January 2024, and the petition proceeds to full hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the doctrine of exhaustion obliged the Petitioner to first go to EPRA and the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal before approaching the ELC

Holding

The Preliminary Objection was dismissed; the petition is properly before the ELC because the pleaded Article 40 property violation lies within this Court's jurisdiction, even though wayleave issues could be addressed under the Energy Act.

Reasoning

The Court surveyed the Kibos litigation, United Millers and Abidha Nicholus, noting the Supreme Court's guidance that in a multifaceted claim a court must address each issue within its jurisdiction. It distinguished the wayleave question (an Energy Act matter) from the pleaded constitutional violation of the right to property under Article 40, which only the ELC can determine. Since the question at trial would be whether the Petitioner was compensated for the deprivation, the constitutional claim anchored the petition in the ELC.

p. 12
02

The primacy and immediacy of jurisdiction

Holding

Jurisdiction is everything and must be determined at once; a court without jurisdiction holds proceedings in abeyance or remits the matter to the appropriate forum.

Reasoning

Relying on Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S', the Court reaffirmed that a jurisdictional question must be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity on the material before it, and a court that lacks jurisdiction must down its tools or hold proceedings in abeyance pending primary adjudication by the relevant forum.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the issue of wayleaves falls under the Energy Act but the claim of violation of the right to property under Article 40 is pleaded, the petition lies before the ELC.
  • Jurisdiction must be addressed immediately once raised; a court without jurisdiction must down its tools.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Preliminary Objection is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Petitioner
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 3, 165(3)(a) and 162(2) of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2012 (as urged by the Petitioner); the Court proceeded on its own jurisdiction over the Article 40 property claim

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Vescon Properties Limited v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited (Environment & Land Petition 15 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 206 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Petition dated 24th April 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/206/eng@2024-01-24

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