[2025] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
The court found that, despite the respondents' assertion that the project had been cancelled, there was no conclusive evidence before the court to that effect. The petitioner continued to assert that the project existed and that its property rights remained at risk. Given the impasse and the need for finality, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kigio Group Company Limited; Respondent: Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited; Respondent: Smec Intevate Limitedrnational Pri; Respondent: Adani Energy Solutions Limited; Respondent: Attorney-General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Muranga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Petition E002 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Directions
- Outcome
- Directions issued for the expeditious conclusion of the petition; conservatory orders remain in force.
- Judges
- MN Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Right to Property, Compulsory Acquisition, Just Compensation, Conservatory Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kigio Group Company Limited
Applicant
Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited
Respondent
Smec Intevate Limitedrnational Pri
Respondent
Adani Energy Solutions Limited
Respondent
Attorney-General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents have violated the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 40, 47, 60(1)(b), and 64 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
- 2 Whether the respondents have contravened sections 144 and 148 of the Land Act, 2012 and the Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) Rules, 2017.
- 3 Whether the conservatory orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's land should remain in force pending the determination of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, despite the respondents' assertion that the project had been cancelled, there was no conclusive evidence before the court to that effect. The petitioner continued to assert that the project existed and that its property rights remained at risk. Given the impasse and the need for finality, the court directed that the petition proceed as it stands, allowing parties a final opportunity to file any further evidence and to choose whether to proceed by written submissions or oral evidence. The conservatory orders previously granted remain in force, and the court emphasized the importance of determining the petition on its merits rather than allowing it to remain pending...
Court Disposition
Directions issued for the expeditious conclusion of the petition; conservatory orders remain in force.
Orders
- The petition shall proceed as it is, with parties given a final opportunity to file any further evidence they may wish to.
- Parties may choose to proceed by way of written submissions or call viva voce evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Kigio Group Company Limited v Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4135 (KLR) (26 May 2025) (Directions)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Muranga
Environment & Land Petition E002 of 2024
MN Gicheru, J
May 26, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 40, 47, 60 (1) (b), 64, 162 (2) AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION, VIOLATION AND INFRINGEMENT IF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 40, 47, 60 (1) (B) AND 64 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND 148 OF THE LAND ACT, NO. 6 OF 2012 IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THE LAND (ASSESSMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION RULES, 2017)
Between
Kigio Group Company Limited
Petitioner
and
Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited
1st Respondent
Smec Intevate Limitedrnational Pri
2nd Respondent
Adani Energy Solutions Limited
3rd Respondent
Attorney-General
4th Respondent
Directions
1. Upon perusal of the record, I find that the Petitioner is currently enjoying conservatory orders which restrain the Respondents from trespassing, making a way leave , erecting structures or digging any foundation, surveying, deploying personnel and or conducting any activities on L.R. No. 10876/2, 10876/3 and 10876/4 Thika or in any other manner interfering with the Petitioner’s quiet possession and title thereof.Secondly, the Sub County Police Commander Gatanga (Kirwara Police Station) was directed to supervise and enforce the adherence, observance and implementation of the order granted by the Court.
2. The above orders were issued by this Court on 17-10-2024. Since then, the case has come up for mention on a number of occasions. The Respondents have taken the position that the suit has been overtaken by events because it is a matter of public notoriety that the project has been cancelled by the Government of Kenya. On the other hand, the petitioner has insisted that the project the subject matter of this dispute exists because there is no tangible evidence of its cancellation.
3. Since the two parties cannot agree, I have thought it prudent to give directions so that the petition is concluded and it does not keep pending.Since the court cannot compel any party to file evidence that they do not have, or if they have it, they do not wish to file, I direct that the petition proceeds as it is. I will give the parties the option to choose whether to proceed by way of written submissions or call viva voce evidence. The bottom line though is that let the court determine the petition as it is but parties will also be given one final chance to file any further evidence that they may wish to.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANG’A THIS 26TH MAY, 2025. M. N. GICHERUJUDGEDelivered online in the presence of:-Court Assistant – Mwangi NjonjoPetitioner’s Counsel – Mr Mwaura1st Respondent’s Counsel – Mr Wachira2nd Respondent’s Counsel – Mr Deiya3rd Respondent’s Counsel