Alpine Coolers Limited v Miheso (Appeal E240 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2386 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Land Court ordered the government to pay KShs 800,000 after Kenya Power cut electricity without notice and the Land Registrar mishandled a title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over the Petition
The ELC has jurisdiction to determine the Petition under Articles 60(1)(f) and 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, read with Article 165(5) which does not limit its constitutional enforcement jurisdiction in land matters.
The Court distinguished David Mathu v Governor of the Central Bank of Kenya, holding that the ELC has equal standing with the High Court to enforce rights arising from land, per section 13(7) of the ELC Act and the authority of Pilius Mutisya Voo v Yi Hui Su.
Alleged forcible eviction and demolition
The Petitioners failed to prove that they were evicted from the suit land by the Respondents or that their homestead was demolished.
The Petitioners were residing on land owned by the Estate of Hosea Kariuki, and their own documents (a letter from the estate chairman, a consent, and sketch map) showed the estate had agreed to the power line wayleave and fencing crossing the land. The claim of forcible eviction and destruction of property was not proved.
Unlawful disconnection of electricity supply
The 1st Respondent disconnected the power supply to the Petitioners' homestead on 16th September 2022 and did not justify the disconnection, thereby violating Article 47 on fair administrative action.
The Chief Officer, Bungoma County Government, sought KPLC's intervention, but KPLC did not respond or justify the disconnection. Although a KPLC official stated power could not be connected until a wayleave was granted, the line already existed under a prior wayleave consent granted to the estate. The disconnection without notice breached fair administrative action.
Fraudulent dealings with the title by the Chief Land Registrar
The Registrar failed to prove the transactions of 2021 and 2023; the entry of 19th July 2023 purporting to transfer the entire plot to the Estate was irregular and had to be revoked, but the entries of 19th October 2023 were valid.
The Registrar's documents were vague and internally inconsistent, including a defective transfer form referencing a non-existent certificate of title, and an affidavit mentioning a 30th June 2021 (sic) that had not taken place. The Estate could only own a wayleave, not the entire plot, and it had never applied for one. The Registrar had no power to deal with the title without an application and notice to the registered owner.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review and constitutional enforcement are procedural mechanisms, not stand-alone causes of action; the manner of approaching the court must be just as important as the outcome, per Rosemary Wangari & 322 others v Kenya Power.
- Remedies in constitutional petitions are a creature of the Constitution and are not limited to judicial review remedies.
- Fair administrative action under Article 47 requires that notice and a hearing be given before a decision affecting rights is made.
Court orders
#- 1.Judicial Review order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the Chief Land Registrar to recall and revoke the entry of 19th July, 2023 on the title of plot N. Bunyala/Khwisero/98.
- 2.Judicial Review order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the Chief Land Registrar to revoke the register by updating the register to reflect its true position.
- 3.Declaration be and is hereby issued that the Chief Land Registrar and the Attorney General violated the Petitioners' right to fair administrative action as enshrined in Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
- 4.Declaratory order that the 1st and 2nd Respondents violated the Petitioners' constitutional rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution by terminating the electricity connection to the Petitioners' homestead without any prior notice or justification.
- 5.The Hon. Attorney General do pay the Petitioners KShs 800,000/= as damages for the violation of their rights and fundamental freedoms and constitutional rights, payable within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment.
- 6.As prayed in the memorandum of claim, the said sum of money shall attract interest at Court rates from the date of filing the suit till payment in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 40, 47, 60(1)(f), 64, 162(2)(b), 165(3)(b), 260 and 261(1) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alpine Coolers Limited v Miheso (Appeal E240 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Case E003 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2386/eng@2024-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.