[2022] KEELC 556 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 556 (KLR)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim, which is based on alleged unlawful entry and use of land by the defendant for the erection of electricity poles and high voltage lines, constitutes a dispute relating to occupation and use of land. Such disputes fall within the broad jurisdiction conferred upon the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 556 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Cape Suppliers Limited; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E307 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
JA Mogeni
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court, Trespass to Land, Compensation for Land Use, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court Trespass to Land Compensation for Land Use Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Suppliers Limited

Plaintiff

Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute involving alleged trespass and erection of electricity poles by the defendant on the plaintiff's land.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority under the Energy Act, 2019.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim, which is based on alleged unlawful entry and use of land by the defendant for the erection of electricity poles and high voltage lines, constitutes a dispute relating to occupation and use of land. Such disputes fall within the broad jurisdiction conferred upon the Environment and Land Court by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The court found that the dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority as contended by the defendant. Consequently, the preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.