Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th February 2026 in response to Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2026 (Tribunal decree: TRLAP/E094/2025 – Lakeview Panorama Limited v KETRACO)· [2026] KEELC 2680 (KLR)

Lakeview Panorama Ltd v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E002 of 2026) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2680 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 May 2026
5,700 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~23 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that KETRACO, as a state corporation, cannot hide behind government immunity and must pay tribunal awards like any ordinary company.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha (M.C. Oundo, J) determines a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th February 2026 raised by KETRACO against Lakeview Panorama Limited's Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2026. The applicant sought adoption and registration as a decree of the Court of a decree issued on 20th November 2025 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in TRLAP/E094/2025, plus execution against KETRACO for a principal of Kshs. 28,705,842.00, accrued interest of Kshs. 13,647,465.10, continuing interest and costs. KETRACO objected that the application offended Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act (a related execution application pending before the Tribunal) and was barred by Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act because KETRACO is 'infused with governmental character'. The court framed two issues: sub judice and the execution bar. On the first, it held the Tribunal's stay application had been dismissed on 16th February 2026, so no pending suit survived to bar jurisdiction, and that the Tribunal, a creature of statute, cannot execute its own decrees; adoption by the ELC is a distinct statutory step. On the second, the court held that Section 21(4) protects only the Crown - Ministries, Departments and the Attorney General - not state corporations incorporated under the Companies Act. KETRACO failed the Shetty criteria for governmental character, Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004 conferred no immunity, and the Supreme Court in the Inabensa case had already rejected KETRACO's public-funds argument in a commercial dispute. The Preliminary Objection was dismissed with costs, clearing the way for the application to be heard on its merits. The Motion itself was not yet determined in this ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application is sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

No. The Respondent's stay application at the Land Acquisition Tribunal had been dismissed on 16th February 2026, so no suit was pending; in any event adoption of a Tribunal decree by the ELC is a distinct statutory procedure, not a duplication of the Tribunal proceedings.

Reasoning

Section 6 requires a previously instituted suit pending between the same parties over the same subject matter. The only matter relied on was KETRACO's stay application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 16th February 2026, leaving no conflicting litigation. Further, the Tribunal is a creature of statute lacking power to execute its own decrees; adoption and enforcement of the award is a separate statutory step reserved for the ELC under Sections 13 and 26 of the ELC Act and Section 128 of the Land Act. The objection was filed ten days before the Tribunal's ruling, anticipating a conflict that never materialised.

p. 9
02

Whether KETRACO, as a state corporation, is immune from execution under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act

Holding

No. Section 21(4) applies only to the Government; KETRACO is a body corporate under the Companies Act, fails the Shetty test for governmental character, and the Supreme Court in the Inabensa case has held that being a public institution run on public funds is not enough to shield it from execution.

Reasoning

KETRACO is a limited liability company with perpetual succession, capable of suing and being sued, operating commercially under the State Corporations Act. Applying the Shetty criteria, although its functions are of public importance, its incorporation and commercial mandate distinguish it from an entity impregnated with governmental character. Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004 is merely policy and cannot transform a commercial company into a Government Department. The Five Star Agencies decision is distinguishable because the NLC is a constitutional commission with purely sovereign functions. The Supreme Court in KETRACO v Instalanciones Inabensa held the dispute was purely commercial, so public-fund status does not shield KETRACO from execution.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act protects only the Government (Ministries, Departments and the Attorney General) and does not automatically extend to state corporations incorporated under the Companies Act.
  • Immunity from execution is a derogation from a successful litigant's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment and must be construed strictly.
  • A statutory tribunal with specialised but limited powers cannot execute its own decrees; adoption of a Tribunal award as a decree is a distinct statutory procedure reserved for the Environment and Land Court.
  • A preliminary objection founded on an anticipated conflict that never materialises (the earlier suit having been concluded) is stillborn and cannot bar the court's jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th February 2026 is dismissed.
  2. 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection are awarded to the Applicant.
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 13 and 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 128 of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 22 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lakeview Panorama Ltd v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E002 of 2026)  (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6th February 2026 in response to Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2026 (Tribunal decree: TRLAP/E094/2025 – Lakeview Panorama Limited v KETRACO). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2680/eng@2026-05-07

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