Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Ltd v Kasina & another (Environment and Land Appeal E023 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3759 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused KETRACO immediate access to disputed land for a power line, but paused the lower court case pending the appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a mandatory injunction pending appeal should issue to allow the appellant access to the suit land
Refused. The appellant failed to establish special circumstances or a clear case warranting an interlocutory mandatory injunction, and the order would conflict with the trial court's injunction
The court applied the Halsbury/Locabail test as approved in Kenya Breweries v Okeyo: mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage require special circumstances, a clear case, or a defendant stealing a march, plus a high degree of assurance. The existence of an old parallel power line mitigated urgency; alleged delay penalties were unproven; and the appellant's lack of a counterclaim weighed against relief. An order allowing access would also contradict the trial court's injunction, since the application did not seek to set it aside.
Whether the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court should be stayed pending appeal
Granted. Both parties deserve to be heard - the appellant on appeal, the respondents at trial - so the trial proceedings are stayed pending disposal of the appeal
The court balanced the respondents' Article 50 right to a fair hearing against the appellant's right to have its appeal heard substantively before the trial court determines the merits. Since granting the mandatory injunction would effectively summarily determine the trial dispute, and the appellant equally deserves to be heard on appeal, a stay of the subordinate court proceedings was found necessary.
Whether the compensation funds should be deposited in an escrow account
Rejected, on the basis that this is an appellate court and such orders belong to the trial court at the execution stage
The court found the escrow proposal not inimical to the parties' interests and noted the funds could ultimately form part of any compensation award. However, as the application was before an appellate court rather than the trial court, it was pointless to issue the order; the proper forum is the trial court, which can make substantive orders at the execution stage.
Legal principles established
#- Mandatory injunctions should be granted sparingly at an interlocutory stage and only in clear cases or where special circumstances exist
- Mere unproven allegation of large public losses is not of itself a special circumstance justifying an interlocutory mandatory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer for leave to access the suit land and for a mandatory injunction refused for lack of special circumstances
- 2.Stay of the proceedings in Malindi MCELC No E081 of 2024 granted pending the disposal of the present appeal
- 3.Prayer for deposit of Kshs 934,020/- in an escrow account rejected, with leave to apply to the trial court if necessary
- 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the substantive appeal
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Malindi
- Malindi MCELC Number E 081 of 2024 - Nelly Kasina and Another v KETRACO
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court under the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Ltd v Kasina & another (Environment and Land Appeal E023 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3759 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Malindi MCELC Appeal (Chamber Summons application dated 16th April 2025; appeal against ruling in Malindi MCELC Number E 081 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3759/eng@2025-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.