REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ELC NO. 36 OF 2011(FAST TRACK) WAIG LIMITED...........................................................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT VERSUS KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CCOMPANY LIMITED...................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT RULING The application was served but did not receive any response. The Plaintiff has annexed Certificate Title (“JMM 2”) to show it is the registered proprietor of the suit land, that is L.R. No. 10821/52 in Thika Weteithie area. In the supporting affidavit of Jacinta Mary Wanjiru, one of the directors, the Plaintiff states that on 24th January 2011 they found the Defendant had erected pylons in the land with a view to putting power lines. This interference was without notice or authority. A letter written to the Defendant on 28th January 2011 to stop was not acted upon. The Plaintiff states that it has subdivided its land into 57 plots to sell and this interference is chasing away prospective buyers. The suit was brought for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and/or general damages. On the uncontroverted material that has been presented by the Plaintiff, I accept that there is prima facie case of trespass on, and interfering with, the private property and that has to be restrained. Under sections 23 and 24 of the Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 281) the Plaintiff’s right to the land is absolute and indefeasible. Such right includes the right to possession, occupation, use, develop and quiet enjoyment. On basis of Giella –Vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, I grant the application in terms of prayers 3 and 4. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 A. O. MUCHELULE JUDGE
Original judgment
Waig Limited & 1 other v Kenya Power & Lighting Ccompany Limited
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.