https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keet/2026/17

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keet/2026/17

The Tribunal found that the Appellant proved ownership of the suit land and that the Respondent failed to establish a lawful basis for maintaining the power lines on the property; the regulator’s contrary decision was therefore erroneous and was set aside.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEET 17 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: JOSEPH GACHUHI GATHUMBI; Respondent: KENYA POWER AND LIGHTING COMPANY
Court
Energy & Petroleum Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E015 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Energy and Petroleum Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Judges
["D.K Mwirigi", "B.H Wasioya"]
Legal Topics
Trespass, Wayleave Corridor, Power Line Installation, Ownership of Land, Appeal Against Regulatory Decision
Source Language
en
Energy Law Property Law Land Law Administrative Law Trespass Wayleave Corridor Power Line Installation Ownership of Land +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOSEPH GACHUHI GATHUMBI

Appellant

KENYA POWER AND LIGHTING COMPANY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Energy and Petroleum Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent’s power lines were unlawfully installed on the Appellant’s land
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant proved ownership of the suit property
  3. 3 Whether the alleged wayleave corridor was validly established

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant proved ownership of the suit land and that the Respondent failed to establish a lawful basis for maintaining the power lines on the property; the regulator’s contrary decision was therefore erroneous and was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The decision of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority delivered on 3 June 2025 in Dispute No. EPRA/PEACP/CP/4/687/2025 is set aside.
  • It is declared that the Respondent’s installation and continued presence of the impugned power lines on the Appellant’s property constitutes trespass.