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 judgment· [2025] KEELC 652 (KLR)

Owuor & another v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (Petition E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 652 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 February 2024
NYNyagaka
4,807 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Landowners disputing compensation for power transmission lines must first complain to Kenya's energy regulator, and only the deceased's legal administrators can sue for their estate.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, beneficiaries of the Estate of the late Dalmas Ogeno Owuor, registered proprietor of North Nyokal/Kawaili/232 and North Nyokal/Kawili/1878, petitioned the Respondent, a state corporation under the Energy Act, alleging violation of their rights to property under Article 40. Their complaint was that letters of offer and an easement agreement of 10th December 2021, signed by Peter Otieno Owuor without letters of administration, provided inadequate compensation (Kshs. 150,000 per acre over 4.143 acres) which had not been paid, while the Respondent erected transmission towers. They sought declarations of violation, an order adjusting compensation to market rates, compensation for loss of income, and alternatively quashing of the agreement. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection on 7th October 2024 contending the Court lacked jurisdiction under the Energy Act and its Regulations, that the easement agreement barred suit, and that the Petitioners lacked locus standi. Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the Court found the objection a pure point of law. It held the dispute over wayleave agreements fell within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority, whose statutory mechanisms the Petitioners had not exhausted. It further held the Petitioners, being without letters of administration, had no locus standi under Section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act. The Court dismissed the Petition with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over the wayleave compensation dispute

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction; the Petitioners ought to have approached the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority and exhausted its dispute-resolution mechanisms

Reasoning

The dispute concerned agreements for wayleaves over the suit parcels and the adequacy and delay of compensation agreed thereunder. The Energy Act and the Energy (Complaints and Disputes Resolution) Regulations 2012 vest jurisdiction over wayleave disputes in the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority, with appeals to the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal. Further, the constitutional articles invoked were not shown to have been breached, so no constitutional issue arose.

p. 8
02

Whether the Petitioners had locus standi to sue on behalf of the Estate

Holding

They had no locus standi as they held no grant of letters of administration

Reasoning

Section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act vests the power to enforce causes of action of a deceased in personal representatives. The Petitioners admitted no grant had been issued to them and sued only as beneficiaries, so they lacked capacity to bring the Petition on behalf of the Estate of the registered proprietor.

p. 9
03

Whether breach of a compensation agreement or delay in payment amounts to a constitutional violation

Holding

No; such matters are for the law of contract

Reasoning

The Court held that where parties agree contractual terms and a timeline is not honoured, the remedy lies in a suit for breach of contract, and unconscionable terms are also governed by contract law rather than constitutional petitions.

p. 7
04

Whether the preliminary objection raised a pure point of law

Holding

It did and met the Mukisa Biscuit threshold

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit and related authorities, the Court found the objection on jurisdiction to be a point of law arising from pleadings, not requiring ascertainment of facts or exercise of discretion.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a breach of an agreement for compensation under a wayleave is alleged, the remedy lies in contract, not in a constitutional petition; disputes over wayleave agreements fall within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority
  • A person who is not a personal representative of a deceased's estate cannot sue on behalf of the estate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection succeeds
  2. 2.The Petition is dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction and want of locus standi
  3. 3.Costs of the Petition to the Defendant/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 19(2), 25, 40, 43, 50, 162(2)(b)
  • Energy ActSections 3(1) and (2), 10, 11(e), (f), (i), (k) and (l), 23, 24, 36, 42, 224(2)(e); 3rd Schedule paragraph 8
  • Energy (Complaints and Disputes Resolution) RegulationsRegulations 2, 4, 7 and 9
  • Environment and Land Court ActSections 13(1), 13(2)(a)
  • Land ActSection 133C(6)
  • Law of Succession ActSection 82(a)
  • Access to Information ActNot specified
  • Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) RulesNot specified
  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (Mutunga Rules)Rules 4(1), 4(2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] EA 696
  • Bashir Haji Abdullahi v Adan Mohammed Noor & 3 others
    [2004] eKLR
  • Susan Wairimu Ndiangui v Pauline W. Thuo & Another
    [2005] eKLR
  • Kuria & 27 others v Mott & 12 others
    (Environment & Land Case 23 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 4220 (KLR)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia and Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
    Application No. 2 of 2011, [2012] eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic
    (1976-1980) KLR 1272
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Abidha Nicholas v Attorney General & 7 others
    Petition No. E007 of 2023
  • Sombo K. Sombo and two others v KETRACO and 3 others
    ELC Case No. E021 of 2021
  • Osman Gutu Wachu and another v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited
    Petition No. E008 of 2022
  • Isaya Masira Momanyi v Daniel Omowoyo & another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Alfred Njau v City Council of Nairobi
    [1983] KLR 625
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution as read with Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Owuor & another v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (Petition E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 652 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/652/eng@2025-02-07

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