Mburu v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya Power must remove a power line built on private land without consent and pay Kshs.300,000 in damages plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Location of the defendant's power line relative to parcel 50
The defendant's power lines fall squarely within the plaintiff's parcel 50, based on the Land Registrar's boundary determination
Pursuant to the Court of Appeal's remittal directions, the court required the Land Registrar Kwale to ascertain the boundaries of parcel 50 and file a report. The registrar found the power lines fell squarely within parcel 50. The court held this determination put to rest the uncertainty as to the boundaries of parcels 50 and 47 and the location of the power line.
Trespass and limitation of actions
The installation without consent constitutes a continuing trespass; the claim is not statute-barred under section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act
The court found the power line was laid without the plaintiff's consent or authority and remains on parcel 50, making it a continuing trespass for each day it remains. Because the trespass continues daily, the defendant's submission that the claim was statute-barred under section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act was rejected.
Entitlement to reliefs
The plaintiff proved his claim on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to a declaration under Article 40, an order to remove and re-route the line, damages and costs, but not an injunction
On the registrar's findings, the court held the plaintiff proved his claim on a balance of probabilities. Judgment was entered with a declaration of contravention of the right to property under Article 40, an order compelling removal and re-routing of the power line, general damages of Kshs.300,000 and costs. A restraining injunction was refused as it would serve no useful purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Determination of general boundaries is the statutory function of the land registrar under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act
- A wrongful power line left standing on another's land constitutes a continuing trespass for each day it remains, defeating a limitation defence
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the defendant has contravened the plaintiff's right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution in relation to parcel No. Kwale/Ukunda/50
- 2.An order compelling the defendant to remove and re-route the power line traversing parcel No. Kwale/Ukunda/50
- 3.Award of Kshs.300,000 as general damages for trespass
- 4.Award of costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction exercised on remittal from the Court of Appeal under Rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, following directions to determine trespass after boundary ascertainment under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mburu v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case 151 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5832/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.