Lakeview Panorama Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO)

Acquisition Tribunal in TRLAP/E094/2025 – Lakeview Panorama Limited v KETRACO; ii. That upon adoption, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue execution orders against the Respondent for: a. Principal sum: Kshs. 28,705,842.00 b. Accrued interest: Kshs. 13,647,465.10 c. Continuing interest at CBK base lending rates and court rates until payment in full d. Costs as awarded. iii. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue Warrants of Attachment and Sale in execution of the Decree; iv. That the costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent. 2. The Notice of Motion Application was premised on the grounds stated on its face as well as on the Supporting Affidavit of equal date sworn by Peter Kinge Njoroge, one of its Directors to the effect that he was the Claimant in Land Acquisition Tribunal case TRLAP/E094/2025 wherein on 20th November 2025, the Tribunal delivered a judgment and decree ordering the Respondent to pay Kshs. 42,353,307/= (principal and accrued interest as of 11th December 2025) 3. That the Tribunal gave the Respondent 45 days to satisfy the decree, but that period expired without full compliance or payment. The Respondent, Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO), is a state corporation with perpetual succession, capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name, distinct from the Government of Kenya and because the decree was against KETRACO in its corporate capacity—and not the Government or a Ministry—Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act (Cap 40), which restricts execution against the Government, did not apply. 4. That since the Land Acquisition Tribunal lacked the statutory authority to execute its own decrees, it was within the preserve of the High Court/Court to adopt and enforce such decree. NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 2 of 14

page 2 of 14

5. That KETRACO had paid only Kshs. 4,000,000/=, leaving an outstanding decretal balance of Kshs. 38,353,307/= and thereafter refused/neglected to pay the balance, but instead filed an application with the Tribunal to frustrate execution. Subsequently, the Tribunal did not grant a stay of execution on KETRACO’s urgent application, leaving the Applicant legally free to file the present application. 6. That they had prepared Draft Warrants of Attachment and Sale for execution once the Court adopts the decree. 7. That they stood to suffer grave financial prejudice if the decree is not adopted and executed, and therefore it was in the interest of justice that the Applicant enjoys the fruits of its judgment. 8. In response to the application, the Respondent, vide a Replying affidavit sworn on 6th February 2026 by its Counsel, deponed that the court lacks jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act because execution proceedings involving the same parties (Lakeview Panorama Limited -vs- KETRACO) were currently awaiting a ruling before the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Case No. TRLAP/E094/2025). 9. That the Applicant’s application was incompetent, defective, and an abuse of court process for violating Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules because the Respondent is a public entity carrying out public duties under Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004 on Energy, thus making the Applicant’s proposed mode of execution (attachment and sale) legally barred. 10. Decrees against the Government or governmental entities can be enforced only through Judicial Review proceedings (such as mandamus), which the Applicant had not filed. 11. That although structured as a State Corporation, KETRACO was "infused with governmental character" and protected under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act due to: i. Its establishment under Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004. ii. Its core function of electricity transmission, which is of public importance. NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 3 of 14

page 3 of 14

iii. Deep, pervasive state control under the State Corporations Act. iv. Its state-conferred monopoly status. 12. Further that the underlying award was subject to a pending appeal (NAIVASHA ELCLA E033 OF 2025), making the Applicant’s attempt to execute premature and an abuse of the court process. That the Applicant’s Notice of Motion should be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice. 13. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions herein summarised as under. 14. The Applicant’s written submissions dated the 14 th May 2026 summarised the genesis of the dispute as follows: 15. That, as the owner of LR No. NAIVASHA/MARAIGUSHU Block 10/4700, it allowed the Respondent (KETRACO) to erect high-voltage transmission lines across 7.655 acres upon KETRACO offering Kshs. 28,705,842/= in compensation on 9th December 2020. The offer was accepted on 22nd December 2020, and the Applicant surrendered its original title deed, and a wayleave was officially registered for KETRACO. 16. Subsequently, KETRACO failed to pay the agreed compensation for over five years despite benefiting from the wayleave, prompting the Applicant to file a claim with the Land Acquisition Tribunal (TRLAP/E094/2025). On 20th November 2025, the Tribunal ruled in the Applicant’s favour, awarding principal compensation of Kshs. 28,705,842/=, simple interest at CBK base rates from 22 nd December 2020 until full payment, and costs of the suit, bringing the total decretal sum to Kshs. 42,353,307/= as of 11 th December 2025. The Tribunal ordered full payment within 45 days (by early January 2026 wherein KETRACO made only a partial payment of Kshs. 4,000,000/=, leaving an unpaid balance of Kshs. 38,353,307/=. 17. That the Applicant had now filed an application for the adoption and execution of a Land Acquisition Tribunal decree to recover an NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 4 of 14

page 4 of 14

outstanding balance of Kshs 38,353,307/= owed by KETRACO. It framed its issues for determination as follows; i. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adopt the Decree of the Land Acquisition Tribunal as a Decree of the Court. ii. Whether the Applicant has established the legal and factual basis for adoption of the Decree and issuance of execution orders; and iii. Whether Warrants of Attachment and Sale ought to issue in execution of the adopted 18. That the Respondent had exhausted all procedural shields and must now satisfy the judgment. It argued that the Environment and Land Court possessed unquestionable jurisdiction to adopt and enforce the Tribunal’s decree, relying on Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and Sections 13 and 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act, which establish the court’s authority over land compensation disputes. Crucially, Section 128 of the Land Act (No. 6 of 2012) expressly empowers the Court to adopt Tribunal awards as its own decrees for execution, a position the Court had already affirmed in its 7 th May 2026 ruling. 19. That the underlying decree remained valid and subsisting and further that, while the Respondent filed an appeal regarding the interest component, no stay of execution had been granted. Citing the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & Another [2017] eKLR, the Applicant noted that filing an appeal did not automatically operate as a stay, granting the decree holder a legitimate right to execute. 20. The Applicant asserted that KETRACO could not shield itself from execution under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 40). And while relying on the Court’s prior Preliminary Objection ruling, it submitted that KETRACO was defined as a commercial, corporate entity, not a protected Government Ministry. This was fortified by the Supreme Court’s holding in KETRACO v Instalanciones Inabensa NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 5 of 14

page 5 of 14

S.A [2022] KESC 64 (KLR), which held that merely claiming custody of public funds did not grant immunity from execution without demonstrating actual jeopardy. 21. That under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court was bound to facilitate just and expeditious dispute resolution. Relying on Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358, the Applicant argued that courts must prevent judgment debtors from using procedural mechanisms to frustrate decree holders indefinitely. Consequently, it prayed for Warrants of Attachment and Sale under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 22. The Applicant further sought that the Court adopt the Tribunal’s decree, issue the prepared Warrants of Attachment and Sale for the principal and accrued interest, and award costs on a full indemnity basis due to the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance. 23. In response, the Respondent, vide its submissions dated 21 st May 2026, framed its issues for determination as follows: i. Whether the existence of a pending appeal on the inte rest component of the Award affects the manner and e xtent of adoption of the Tribunal Award; ii. Whether execution ought to issue in respect of contest ed interest pending determination of the appeal; and iii. 24. Who should bear the costs of the Application. The Respondent KETRACO resisted the adoption and execution of the Land Acquisition Tribunal’s decree in respect of the contested interest. While conceding to the principal compensation sum, the Respondent emphasized that a substantive appeal (Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025) was currently pending, which appeal strictly challenged the Tribunal’s application and interpretation of Section 117 of the Land Act, specifically targeting the commencement date, accrual principles, legality, and proportionality of the awarded interest. 25. The Respondent argued that executing the interest component prior to the appeal’s determination would render the pending appeal nugatory and prejudice the substratum of the case. NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 6 of 14

page 6 of 14

26. It further contended that as a State Corporation performing critical national functions (electrical transmission infrastructure), its utilization of funds was subject to public interest and scrutiny and payments outside budgeted allocations were to be drawn from other vote heads intended for public services. 27. Relying on the decision in Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Tana Water Services Board [2014] (sic), the Respondent warned that executing a decree against State Corporations acting as custodians of public funds while an appeal was pending could lead to unjust outcomes and deny services to the public. 28. Reasserting its position on preliminary rulings, the Respondent cited the case in Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya [1996] (sic) to argue that preliminary determinations did not preclude parties from reasserting foundational public interest arguments in the main suit. 29. The Respondent submitted that the Court should exercise its judicial discretion to distinguish between the undisputed principal sum and the contested interest, stating that the Applicant would suffer no prejudice if the disputed interest is stayed pending appeal, because it (KETRACO) remained willing to settle the principal sum. 30. That executing the contested interest prematurely risked disbursing public funds that an appellate court may later declare excessive or unlawful. 31. On the issue of costs, the Respondent submitted that costs were discretionary and should be in the cause because it acted in good faith by admitting the principal sum and raising genuine, arguable legal questions regarding interest under Section 117 of the Land Act. It sought the adoption of the Tribunal Award only to the extent of the undisputed principal sum. That execution of the contested interest component be stayed pending the hearing and determination of Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025 and for Costs to be in the cause. Determination. NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 7 of 14

page 7 of 14

32. I have considered the Applicant’s application by way of Notice of Mo tion dated 21st January 2026, the Respondent’s response, the parties’ s ubmissions, the applicable law, and authorities herein cited. Briefly, the Applicant’s application seeks orders from the Environment and Land Court to formally adopt and register the Land Acquisition Tribunal’s 20th November 2025 decree (in TRLAP/E094/2025) as a decree of the Court so it can be legally executed. It further seeks for the Court to authorize execution against KETRACO to recover the outstanding balance of Kshs. 38,353,307/= (comprising the principal sum and accrued interest, minus the Kshs. 4,000,000/= partial payment) alongside continuing interest and costs, grant Warrants of Attachment and Sale directed to Rigid Auctioneers to attach and sell KETRACO’s movable property to satisfy the unpaid judgment and for costs of the application. 33. In response to the said application, the Respondent (KETRACO) agre es to the court’s partial adoption of the decree but seeks a stay of exec ution of the interest component, arguing that it does not dispute the pri ncipal compensation owed (Kshs. 28,705,842/=), which it is willing to s atisfy, but that, because there is a pending appeal (Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025) challenging the Tribunal’s interpretation of Section 117 o f the Land Act, specifically regarding the legality, start date, and compu tation of the Kshs. 13,647,465.10 interest, the interest component shou ld be stayed. 34. That, as a state corporation delivering critical energy infrastructure, paying the contested interest now risks wasting public funds and rendering its pending appeal nugatory. That the Court should therefore adopt only the award for the undisputed principal sum, stay execution of the interest pending the appeal, and order that costs be in the cause. 35. From the above summary, I find the issues arising for my determination as follows: NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 8 of 14

page 8 of 14

i. Whether the Court should formally adopt and register the Land Acquisition Tribunal Decree as a Decree of the Environment and Land Court. ii. Whether execution/enforcement ought to issue for the contested interest component pending the appeal. iii. Whether Warrants of Attachment and Sale of KETRACO’s movable assets should be issued. iv. 36. Who should bear the costs of the Application? On the first issue for determination as to whether the Court should formally adopt and register the Land Acquisition Tribunal Decree as a Decree of the Environment and Land Court, Section 128 of the Land Act (No. 6 of 2012) provides as follows: ‘’Any dispute arising out of any matter provided for under this Act may be referred to the Land and Environment Co urt for determination.’’ 37. The 2019 amendments to the Land Act created the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Part VIIIA to hear land acquisition disputes at the first instance, while reserving overall jurisdictional review and enforcement under Section 128 to the ELC. Statutorily established tribunals lack the inherent execution powers reserved for superior courts of record. Section 128 therefore serves as the statutory bridge. When a party applies under Section 128 to enforce a Tribunal award, the ELC exercises its jurisdiction by formalizing the award into a Court Decree, enabling execution processes under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules (e.g. Warrants of Attachment and Sale). Section 128 of the Land Act therefore confers general supervisory and appellate/enforcement ju risdiction on the Environment and Land Court (ELC). 38. Sections 13 and 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act further confer on the Court full jurisdiction to enforce any decision, order, or award within its subject-matter mandate (land acquisition and compensation). Indeed, in its ruling of 7 th May 2026, this Court confirmed that adoption was not a duplication of proceedings but a necessary statutory mechanism enabling a decree holder to realise the NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 9 of 14

page 9 of 14

fruits of its judgment. Adoption thus formally converts the Tribunal’s final award into a court order; it does not in itself preclude the Court from managing how or when specific portions of the decree are executed. 39. In this matter, the Respondent (KETRACO) concedes the principal compensation sum of Kshs. 28,705,842/= and agrees to its adoption, but opposes the adoption/execution of the interest component (Kshs. 13,647,465.10/=) on account of its pending appeal in Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025, which challenges the Tribunal’s interpretation of Section 117 of the Land Act regarding when interest begins to accrue. 40. Given that the Court is legally bound and statutorily empowered under Section 128 of the Land Act to adopt and register the Tribunal’s decree, and further given the Respondent’s admission of the principal debt and the absence of any existing stay order, I shall formally adopt the decree, while determining whether execution on the contested interest should be stayed pending the outcome of the Naivasha appeal. 41. On the second issue for determination as to whether execution/enforcement ought to issue for the contested interest component pending the appeal, Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates as follows: ‘No Appeal or second Appeal shall operate as a stay of ex ecution or proceedings under a decree or order Appealed from except in so far as the court Appealed from may ord er but, the court Appealed from may for sufficient cause o rder stay of execution of such decree or order, and wheth er the application for such stay shall have been granted o r refused by the court Appealed from, the court to which such Appeal is preferred shall be at liberty, on application being made, to consider such application and to make su ch order thereon as may to it seem just, and any person aggrieved by an order of stay made by the court from wh NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 10 of 14

page 10 of 14

ose decision the Appeal is preferred may apply to the app ellate court to have such order set aside. (2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under su brule (1) unless— (a) the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result t o the Applicant unless the order is made and that the app lication has been made without unreasonable delay; and (b) such security as the court orders for the due performa nce of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the Applicant.’ 42. Under Order 42, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as well as the holding by the Court of Appeal in Kenya Shell Limited vs. Kibiru [19 86] KLR 410, an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution. 43. To obtain a stay or restrict execution pending appeal, a judgment debtor must therefore satisfy the conditions set out in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules: demonstrating substantial loss, filing without unreasonable delay, and offering security. 44. It therefore goes without saying that 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. 45. Given that Courts frequently exercise inherent powers under the provisions of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act to structure execution in a way that minimises prejudice to both sides and further given that the Respondent (KETRACO) failed to formally apply for and secure stay orders under Order 42 Rule 6 in the Environment and Land Court for which mere opposition in submissions does not replace a formal application for stay, I find that the Applicant is legally entitled to enforce the entire decree. However, because the interest component is NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 11 of 14

page 11 of 14

subject to a pending, bona fide statutory challenge under Section 117 of the Land Act, I shall adopt a balanced approach by permitting immediate execution for the undisputed principal balance while requiring security for the contested interest component, to preserve the appeal’s substratum. 46. On the third issue, namely whether Warrants of Attachment and Sale of KETRACO’s movable assets should be issued, the provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules relate to the execution of decrees and orders, under which attachment and sale of movable property is the primary execution remedy for recovering unsatisfied money decrees. 47. In the present case, a valid decree exists, and the Tribunal’s 45-day voluntary compliance period has long since lapsed. The Respondent (KETRACO) has paid only Kshs 4,000,000/= out of a total liability of Kshs. 42,353,307/=. The Applicant has filed a formal draft warrant addressed to Rigid Auctioneers, thereby fulfilling the procedural requirements under Order 22 hereinabove captioned. 48. In its ruling of 7th May, 2026, the Court held that KETRACO was a commercial entity incorporated under the Companies Act, not a Government Ministry, and therefore the statutory immunity raised herein, under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act against attachment was res judicata, the issue having been conclusively determined by the Court while citing the Supreme Court’s decision in KETRACO v Instalanciones Inabensa S.A [2022] KESC 64 (KLR) where the Supreme court had held that KETRACO was subject to standard commercial execution processes. No appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal. And therefore, the finding that KETRACO’s movable assets are subject to attachment and sale is binding law in this suit for the unpaid principal balance of Kshs 24,705,842/= (the Kshs 28,705,842/= agreed award minus the Kshs 4,000,000/= partial payment). 49. Regarding the Kshs. 13,647,465.10 disputed interest, and so as to prevent public disruption or safeguard public utility assets while NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 12 of 14

page 12 of 14

Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025 is pending, KETRACO shall deposit the so-disputed interest into Court pending the outcome of the pending appeal. 50. In the end, the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2026 is allowed on the following terms: i. The Award and Decree issued on 20 th 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. ii. Execution orders are hereby issued against the Respondent for the immediate payment of the outstanding principal compensation balance of Kshs. 24,705,842/= (being Kshs. 28,705,842/= less the Kshs. 4,000,000/= partial payment made), together with the costs awarded by the Tribunal. iii. 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. iv. There shall be a conditional stay of execution on the contested accrued interest of Kshs. 13,647,465.10 from the date of this Ruling to enable the Respondent to prosecute its appeal in Naivasha ELCLA No. E033 of 2025, subject to the Respondent depositing the said sum of Kshs. 13,647,465.10 into an interest-earning joint escrow account in the names of counsel for both parties within thirty (30) days of this Ruling. v. In default of such deposit, the stay order shall automatically lapse, and Warrants of Attachment shall NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 13 of 14

page 13 of 14

issue for the full interest sum without further reference to the Court. vi. The Applicant/Decree Holder shall have costs. Dated and delivered via Microsoft Teams at Naivasha this 1st day of October 2026. M.C. OUNDO ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT– JUDGE NAIVASHA ELCL MISC Appl No. E002/2026 RULING Page 14 of 14

page 14 of 14