Lakeview Panorama Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a landowner to seize KETRACO's assets for unpaid land compensation, but shielded the disputed interest amount pending appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court should formally adopt and register the Land Acquisition Tribunal Decree as a Decree of the Environment and Land Court
- 2.Whether execution/enforcement ought to issue for the contested interest component pending the appeal
- 3.Whether Warrants of Attachment and Sale of KETRACO's movable assets should be issued
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the Application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to adopt and register the Land Acquisition Tribunal decree
The ELC is statutorily empowered under Section 128 of the Land Act and Sections 13 and 26 of the ELC Act to adopt the Tribunal's decree as its own
The 2019 amendments created the Land Acquisition Tribunal to hear land acquisition disputes at first instance, but tribunals lack inherent execution powers reserved for superior courts. Section 128 serves as the statutory bridge: on application, the ELC formalizes the award into a court decree enabling execution under Order 22. The court's own 7th May 2026 ruling had already confirmed adoption is a necessary statutory mechanism, not a duplication of proceedings.
Whether execution should issue for the contested interest pending appeal
The Applicant is entitled to enforce the entire decree since no stay was granted, but the court structured execution: immediate execution on the undisputed principal, with the contested interest secured by deposit into escrow
Under Order 42 Rule 6 and Kenya Shell v Kibiru, an appeal does not operate as a stay; KETRACO never formally applied for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 in the ELC, and mere submissions cannot replace such an application. However, exercising inherent powers under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, the court balanced the parties' positions by requiring security for the disputed interest to preserve the appeal's substratum.
Whether Warrants of Attachment and Sale should issue against KETRACO
Yes, for the unpaid principal balance; the Section 21 Government Proceedings Act immunity argument was res judicata per the court's 7th May 2026 ruling
A valid decree exists, the 45-day compliance period lapsed, and KETRACO paid only Kshs. 4,000,000 of Kshs. 42,353,307. The prior ruling, citing the Supreme Court in KETRACO v Instalanciones Inabensa S.A, held KETRACO a commercial entity subject to standard execution; no appeal was filed, so that finding binds. A formal draft warrant addressed to Rigid Auctioneers satisfied Order 22 procedural requirements.
Legal principles established
#- Section 128 of the Land Act is the statutory bridge conferring on the ELC supervisory and enforcement jurisdiction to convert Tribunal awards into court decrees for execution
- An appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution; a judgment debtor must satisfy Order 42 Rule 6 conditions
- Mere opposition in submissions cannot substitute for a formal application for stay under Order 42 Rule 6
- KETRACO, being a commercial entity incorporated under the Companies Act and not a Government Ministry, is subject to standard commercial execution processes
Court orders
#- 1.The Tribunal's Award and Decree of 20th November 2025 in TRLAP/E094/2025 recognized, adopted and registered as a Decree of the Environment and Land Court
- 2.Execution orders issued for immediate payment of the outstanding principal compensation balance of Kshs. 24,705,842/= plus Tribunal costs
- 3.Warrants of Attachment and Sale of the Respondent's movable assets to be signed, sealed and issued forthwith to Rigid Auctioneers, Nairobi
- 4.Conditional stay of execution on the contested accrued interest of Kshs. 13,647,465.10 pending Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025, subject to deposit of that sum into an interest-earning joint escrow account in the names of counsel for both parties within 30 days
- 5.In default of the deposit, the stay lapses and Warrants of Attachment issue for the full interest sum without further reference to the Court
- 6.The Applicant/Decree Holder to have costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 13 and 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 128 of the Land Act (No. 6 of 2012); Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Immediate execution for the full decretal balance including the contested interest of Kshs. 13,647,465.10
The interest component is subject to a pending bona fide statutory challenge; the court granted a conditional stay requiring the sum to be deposited in escrow
Costs
The Applicant/Decree Holder shall have costs of the application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Award and Decree issued on 20th November 2025 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in TRLAP/E094/2025 (Lakeview Panorama Limited v. Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited) is hereby recognized, adopted, and registered as a Decree of the Environment and Land Court.
Warrants of Attachment and Sale of the Respondent's movable assets be signed, sealed, and issued forthwith to Rigid Auctioneers, Nairobi, to execute and recover the outstanding principal sum of Kshs. 24,705,842/= plus Tribunal costs.
In default of such deposit, the stay order shall automatically lapse, and Warrants of Attachment shall issue for the full interest sum without further reference to the Court.
The Applicant/Decree Holder shall have costs.
a decree holder retains an enforceable right to execute a valid, subsisting decree, more so where no stay was granted by the Tribunal or this Court, unless a court explicitly grants such stay order.
Issues in the judgment
#Arithmetical discrepancy: applicant claimed outstanding balance of Kshs. 38,353,307 but court ordered principal of Kshs. 24,705,842 plus escrowed interest of Kshs. 13,647,465.10, figures that do not reconcile with the pleaded balance
Quoted Section 128 of the Land Act text does not correspond to the adoption/enforcement power the court attributes to it
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lakeview Panorama Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL Miscellaneous Case No. E002 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6093/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.