Gathi & another v Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 336 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 4826 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court awarded eleven landowners over Kshs 22 million from Kenya Power for transmission line land, using current—not 2003—property values.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Abatement of deceased plaintiffs' claims for failure to substitute
Claims did not abate; failure to file a formal substitution application was a procedural technicality where legal representatives testified with letters of administration
The representatives obtained letters of administration and gave evidence. The court held that absence of a formal substitution application does not nullify such evidence, rejecting the defendant's reliance on Order 24 abatement, and proceeded to consider the deceased plaintiffs' claims on their merits.
Claims of plaintiffs who did not adduce evidence
Dismissed; facts pleaded must be proved
Of 172 plaintiffs only 26 testified. Relying on section 107 of the Evidence Act, the court held pleadings are only statements of facts which must be proved, and claims of plaintiffs who tendered no evidence could not succeed.
Validity of the wayleave acquisition for non-compliance with sections 45 and 46 of the Electric Power Act
Process not declared null and void despite absence of written notice; plaintiffs were sufficiently engaged
Although no written notice under section 45(2) was produced, correspondence and handwritten notes of discussions showed plaintiffs were aware of the project and the documents signed set out the size of land affected, so the acquisition of the wayleave was not nullified.
Entitlement to further compensation by plaintiffs who signed acknowledgements
Not viable absent proof of coercion or unconscionability
The acknowledgements confirmed full and final settlement. Coercion was not proved except in an unconvincing assertion by Francis Njoro, and the equitable doctrine of unconscionable bargains, with its three prerequisites, was not satisfied on the evidence.
Appropriate valuation date for compensation
2003 rate rejected; 2019 plaintiff valuation adopted
The defendant never completed compensation for the land, its continued presence amounted to trespass, and paying 2003 figures years later would be unjust. The court adopted the plaintiff valuer's 2019 report, supported by the principle of just compensation under Article 40(3) and the Zinj decision on market value.
Compensation for plaintiffs whose remainder land was rendered unusable
Two plaintiffs whose wayleave equated to acquisition of the entire land awarded value of whole land less sums received
For parcels 1921 and 2107 the trace line and wayleave divided the land so that the remainder disadvantaged development, justifying compensation as for the entire land rather than only the portions acquired.
General damages for nuisance/health hazards
No award; not proved
No expert evidence was called to measure the noise or prove harm to persons, livestock or crops, so the nuisance claim failed for want of proof.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving coercion in the execution of acknowledgements and easement agreements lies on the party alleging it
- Being put in a room without evidence of threats does not constitute coercion
- Compensation for property taken should be premised on prompt payment in full of just compensation, supporting the use of current rather than stale valuation dates
- A party bears the burden of proving facts asserted for judgment; pleadings must be proved
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claims of the 14 plaintiffs listed under paragraph 186 who signed acknowledgements where only their land was affected
- 2.Judgment entered for the eleven (11) plaintiffs listed in paragraphs 188, 189 and 190 with compensation as itemised
- 3.Harun Muiruri Mbugua awarded Kshs 2,933,000 (Kshs 3 million minus Kshs 67,000)
- 4.Margaret Njeru Ngotho awarded Kshs 2,200,000 (Kshs 2.5 million minus Kshs 300,000)
- 5.Lucy Wambui Njunge awarded Kshs 2 million
- 6.Veronica Wangui Gichumu awarded Kshs 3.5 million
- 7.James Mwangi Karithii awarded Kshs 1.5 million
- 8.Daniel Ngotho Noroge awarded Kshs 1.5 million for L.R No. 2108 and Kshs 2.5 million for L.R No 2325
- 9.John Kinyanjui Nganga awarded Kshs 120,000
- 10.Paul Kirumba Kiome awarded Kshs 100,000
- 11.Ruth Wamboi Njuho awarded Kshs 700,000
- 12.Paul Kamanu Kamangu awarded Kshs 100,000
- 13.Michael Karanu Mbugua (on behalf of Mbugua Karanu Irungu - deceased) awarded Kshs 5.5 million
- 14.Interest on the awarded sums at court rates from the date of judgment
- 15.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit (compensation, mesne profits and general damages) transferred to the Environment and Land Court upon operationalisation in 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gathi & another v Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 336 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 4826 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Original Plaint dated 18th April 2005 (HCCC, transferred to ELC in 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4826/eng@2025-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.