Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) v Onsongo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E028 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3161 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Execution of the alleged letter of authority
The appellant failed to prove that the 1st respondent executed the authority directing payment to the 2nd respondent
The document bore an apparent finger impression that had to be proved pursuant to Section 70 of the Evidence Act to be that of the 1st respondent, which could have been done by a document examiner; no such report was availed. Further, the appellant's own witness acknowledged that both persons needed to sign the authority, which was not done.
Proof of payment
No evidence whatsoever proved payment to the 2nd respondent
The appellant's own witness could not confirm payment and had no document showing the 2nd respondent received any money. If payment was made by bank deposit or transfer, the appellant would possess the deposit slip or transfer document, none of which was produced, including in the rejected additional evidence application.
Burden of proof
The burden rested squarely on the appellant under Sections 107, 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act
Payment, if made, was a fact especially within the knowledge of the appellant, and it was the appellant asserting payment pursuant to instructions; it was not for the 1st respondent to prove non-payment.
Two separate promises to the two widows
The appellant made two separate promises, binding herself to pay each widow Kshs. 231,285.60/= for her respective portion
Two letters of offer dated 1 February 2016 were executed on 12 February 2016, one for each beneficiary, each promising equal compensation for her portion of the wayleave over the land informally subdivided between the two widows.
Legal principles established
#- The party asserting that payment was made pursuant to an authority bears the burden of proving both the authority and the payment; the burden does not shift to the payee to prove non-payment
- Where a document is alleged to bear a person's signature or finger impression, that signature or handwriting must be proved to be that person's under Section 70 of the Evidence Act
- A defendant who desires contribution or indemnity from a co-defendant must take out a notice of claim against co-defendant under Order 1 Rule 24; a third party notice lies to a person not already a party
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
- 2.Judgment of the trial court upheld; appellant ordered to make good her promise to pay the 1st respondent the compensation sum
- 3.Interest payable from the time of filing suit to the time of full settlement at court rates
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court unspecified by name in the judgment text)
- Not stated in the judgment text
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from subordinate courts (appeal against judgment of the trial Magistrate in a land/wayleave compensation suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) v Onsongo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E028 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3161 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text (appeal from the decision of the trial Magistrate delivered 7 November 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3161/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.