Mwoni & 7 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (Environment & Land Petition 23 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 929 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed Mwingi landowners' bid for Kshs. 94 million more compensation from KETRACO, ruling they should have used statutory channels, not a constitutional petition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi precision threshold
The petition was pleaded with sufficient precision; the petitioners identified the articles violated and the manner of violation
The court noted the petition set out in paragraph 5 the complaints under Articles 27, 40, 47 and 50 and the actions complained of. Following Mohamed Fugicha, the primary purpose of pleadings is to communicate complaints and give sufficient notice, and the Constitution does not lionize form over substance. The Respondent could tell the case it was to respond to.
Locus standi of the 8 petitioners to sue for 86 others
The 8 petitioners had locus standi as representatives under Article 22(b) and Rule 4 of the Mutunga Rules; no signed consents were required since the Civil Procedure Rules did not apply
Article 22 allows a person acting in the interest of a group or class to institute proceedings. The constitutional petition rules do not require consent or authority from represented persons, and the petition was not subject to the Civil Procedure Rules. The court adopted the reasoning in Francis Angueyah Ominde on substance over process.
Whether the petition offended the doctrine of constitutional avoidance
Yes; the claim, being essentially about quantum of wayleave compensation and contract validity, should have been resolved on another basis and not as a constitutional petition
The court found the Land Act and the repealed Energy Act 2006 provided statutory mechanisms for determining compensation disputes, including Section 148(5) of the Land Act and the Energy Regulatory Commission/Tribunal. The petitioners' authorities on unconscionability arose from ordinary suits. Following CCK v Royal Media Services and Southlake Panorama, the claim was not properly laid as a constitutional issue.
Whether the petition offended the doctrine of exhaustion
Yes; adequate alternative mechanisms existed under the Land Act, the repealed Energy Act and the internal grievance redress mechanisms in the Resettlement Action Plan
Although the Supreme Court in Abidha Nicholus held that an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar constitutional relief, the court found the petitioners had not shown the alternatives were inadequate. Scrutiny of the prayers revealed the basic claim was enhancement of compensation, i.e. contractual in nature, and the constitutional violations were mere bootstraps.
Whether the respondent violated the law in creating the wayleave
No finding against the respondent; the challenge to compliance with Sections 144, 146 and 148 of the Land Act was not pleaded and could not be raised through submissions
The court held the petitioners were bound by their pleadings; the complaint about failure to apply to the National Land Commission emerged only in submissions. Had it been pleaded, the respondent would have been obliged to demonstrate compliance with the statutory process. Citing Mutinda Mule and Ole Tukai, evidence and submissions at variance with pleadings go to no issue.
Validity of the compensation agreements
The agreements were valid; allegations of intimidation, duress, coercion and unconscionability were not proved, and the court cannot rewrite the contracts
The letters of offer gave the petitioners 14 days to consider and accept; property damage reports and crop compensation schedules showed payment for crops, trees and structures. No specific instances of intimidation were given, no evidence of inability to read, and the valuer's report lacked comparables and rates. Following LTI Kisii Safari Inns and National Bank of Kenya v Pipe Plastic Samkolit, the court cannot rewrite contracts.
Violation of Articles 27, 40, 47 and 50
No violation proved
Arising from the totality of the claim, the court found no proof of violations of equality, property, fair administrative action or fair hearing rights. The claim was essentially contractual and quantum-based, not constitutional.
Legal principles established
#- Where a clear procedure for redress of a grievance is prescribed by statute, that procedure should be strictly followed
- Quantum of compensation for wayleaves is not a matter for the constitutional court; statutory options exist
- A court cannot rewrite a contract between parties absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence
- Parties are bound by their pleadings; evidence at variance with pleadings must be disregarded
- Availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar constitutional relief, but the adequacy of the alternative and the purpose of seeking constitutional relief must be scrutinised
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 150 of the Land Act
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, "Mwoni & 7 others v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (Environment & Land Petition 23 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 929 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Amended Petition dated 13th March 2017, amended 5th November 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/929/eng@2024-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.