Kigio Group Company Limited v Kenya Electicity Transmission Company Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3182 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land court ruled that private contractors cannot take land wayleaves for power lines without the National Land Commission and genuine public participation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Transparency by the Respondents in dealing with the Petitioner
The Respondents were not transparent.
Transparency is a national value under Article 10 binding state organs and persons implementing public policy. The court found three instances: failure to file written evidence of the cancellation of the PPP contracts; supplying the Petitioner with an obsolete 2017 ESIA report instead of the current one at the meeting of 8/3/2024; and failure to clarify who the proponent of the project is. These demonstrated lack of good faith.
Whether the 3rd Respondent could lawfully acquire wayleaves under the PPP Act without involving the 1st Respondent
It could not.
Section 144 of the Land Act vests in the National Land Commission the mandate to initiate creation of a wayleave, on its own behalf or on behalf of a state department, county government or public body. The 2nd Respondent itself measured the wayleave while the 1st Respondent was completely left out, so the exercise was unlawful.
Prematurity and exhaustion of statutory mechanisms
The petition was not prematurely filed.
The court had already ruled in its ruling of 17/10/2024 that the petition was not premature, and no appeal or review was brought against that ruling. Relying on Benard Murage v Finserve Africa Ltd, a party may approach the court on a threat of violation of a constitutional right, which sufficed here pending creation of the wayleave.
Whether an agent can be sued for acts done on behalf of a disclosed principal
Yes, in exceptional circumstances, and the 2nd Respondent is properly joined.
While an agent acting for a disclosed principal is ordinarily not personally liable, exceptions exist where the agent acts outside authority, faces statutory or constitutional liability, or acts as principal in fact. Article 22 allows suit against a party that participates in a threatened violation; the 2nd Respondent handed over the obsolete ESIA report and was actively involved in the violation.
Responsibility for the auction of the Petitioner's property
The Respondents are not responsible.
It was the Petitioner's own obligation to service its loans. Had it done so its property would not have been sold. The court found no connection between the unserviced loans and the compulsory acquisition or wayleave creation.
Whether structural interdicts and monetary reliefs should issue
Those involving immediate deposit of hefty sums are not tenable; compliance with Article 10 and genuine public participation will address the rest.
The court declined to order deposit of Kshs. 1 billion or the valuation/ESIA structural orders, holding instead that the Respondents must conduct a real, meaningful, inclusive and reasonable public participation meeting the essentials laid out, relying on the Gakuru case; the burden of proving compliance was on the 2nd Respondent and it failed.
Legal principles established
#- A party may approach the court on a threat of violation of the Constitution without waiting for actual violation.
- Under section 144 of the Land Act, only the National Land Commission (or a state body it acts for) may initiate creation of a wayleave; a private PPP contractor cannot lawfully do so.
- An agent can be personally sued in exceptional circumstances, including where the agent itself participates in a constitutional violation.
- Meaningful public participation requires adequate notice, adequate information, adequate time to respond and inclusivity of affected and vulnerable groups.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondents' action of seeking to curtail, undermine and deprive the Petitioner of its property without compensation is unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional (relief (a) granted).
- 2.A declaration that the conduct of the 1st Respondent's Managing Director violates Article 10(2) of the Constitution (relief (b) granted).
- 3.A declaration that the intended acquisition of the Petitioner's land without adhering to the strict and mandatory provisions of the Constitution and the Land Act violates the Petitioner's rights of ownership of property under Article 40(3)(a) and (b) (relief (c) granted).
- 4.A declaration that the Respondents' actions are in violation of section 144 of the Land Act (relief (d) granted).
- 5.A declaration that the failure by the Respondents to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Land Act violates the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution (relief (e) granted).
- 6.The Petitioner is awarded costs of the petition.
- 7.The rest of the prayers are dismissed.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22 and Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition enforcing threatened rights; original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kigio Group Company Limited v Kenya Electicity Transmission Company Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3182 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MRG ELC PET E002 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3182/eng@2026-05-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.