https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keet/2026/1

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: ENERGY AND PETROLEUM TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: EPA/E001/2026 LUCY WAMBUI MUYA VS KENYA POWER & LIGHTING COMPANY JUDGMENT # BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant lodged an appeal against the determination of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (“the Authority” or “EPRA”) dated 5th December 2025, which found that the Respondent’s low voltage (LV) line traversed her property unlawfully but declined to award damages or coercive remedies. # APPELLANT’S CASE 1. The Appellant is the registered owner of L.R. Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195 in Engineer Town, Nyandarua County, purchased in August 2022. 2. She alleges that the Respondent, Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC), unlawfully routed electricity lines across her land without consent, compensation, or a valid wayleave. 3. The encroachment restricts development of her commercial building, poses safety risks, deters tenants, and causes economic loss. 4. She further challenges an inflated electricity connection quotation of KShs. 121,350, which she claims was discriminatory compared to neighbouring properties. 1. In the proceedings before EPRA, the Appellant sought removal or regularization of the power lines; a fair quotation for electricity connection; immediate electricity connection; general, compensatory, and aggravated damages for trespass and loss. 2. The Appellant relied on constitutional protections under Articles 27, 40, and 46 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Energy Act, Land Act, Land Registration Act, and Trespass Act. She cited authorities where courts held that installation of electricity infrastructure without consent amounted to trespass requiring compensation. 3. The Appellant does not challenge EPRA’s factual findings in her favour. Instead, she appeals on the basis that EPRA failed to grant effective remedies after finding that the power lines unlawfully encroached on her land. 4. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the Authority: 5. issued only declaratory orders; 6. failed to order removal of the cables; 7. failed to compel issuance of a fair quotation; 8. failed to award damages despite finding in her favour; 9. failed to provide adequate reasons for denying substantive reliefs. 10. The Appellant argues that the decision of the Authority violated Article 47 of the Constitution by denying lawful and reasonable administrative action. 11. The Appellant prays that the Tribunal: 12. allows the appeal; 13. replaces EPRA’s declaratory orders with enforceable orders; 14. compels KPLC to remove the power cables from her property, issue a fair quotation and make immediate electricity connection; 15. awards general, compensatory, and aggravated damages; 16. alternatively remits the matter back to EPRA for assessment of damages and effective remedies; 17. award costs of the appeal. # KPLC RESPONSE 1. The Respondent filed a Statement of Response and a Cross Appeal, denying trespass and challenging ownership, while seeking orders compelling demolition of the Appellant’s building or alternatively requiring her to pay for rerouting. 1. The Respondent argued that the LV line had been erected in 2015 before the Appellant acquired the property and that consent had allegedly been obtained from the previous owner when supplying electricity to Kanyugi Comprehensive School. KPLC further stated that the quotation issued to the Appellant included costs of rerouting the existing line. 2. The Respondent also argued that the Appellant is not the registered owner of L.R. Nyandarua/Kahuru/1195, pointing to discrepancies in the Record of Appeal which shows ownership of Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195. 3. KPLC submitted that the Appellant alleges that she is the registered owner of L.R. NO. Nyandarua/Kahuru/1195 while the Title Deed indicates that the Appellant is the registered owner of a different parcel of land namely L.R. NO. Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195; and that in its determination dated 5th December 2025, the Authority stated that *“the low voltage distribution line traversing parcel L.R NO. Nvandarua/Kahuru/1195 amounts to an unlawful and improper encroachment on the plaintiff's land”.* 4. The Respondent argues that the two properties, namely, LR NO. Nyandarua/Kahuru/1195 and LR NO. Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195 are separate and distinct properties and the difference in the title numbers is succinct and devoid of ambiguity. KPLC contends that it is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and the discrepancy in citation of the suit property cannot be treated as a mere typographical error curable by amending of pleadings. 5. In the Cross Appeal, the Respondent avers that the Authority erred by relying on a sale agreement allegedly not served. It further avers that EPRA failed to verify ownership and conduct a site visit. 6. The Respondent contends that according to the sale agreement dated 24th August 2022 between Eunice Wangeci Gachiri and Lucy Wambui Muya and Peter Mwangi Gathungu, the Appellant had visited the property namely L.R NO. Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195 and satisfied herself as to the physical location and condition of the same. The Appellant avers that shortly after the purchase she noticed an electric wire running from a transformer located near her property, extending towards Kanyugi Comprehensive School. 7. It is apparent that the Appellant did not carry out proper due diligence prior to the purchase of the property namely L.R NO. Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195 and in a bid to regularize her purchase, she engaged a Mr. Kinyanjui who allegedly visited her property accompanied by another unknown person and illegally removed the Respondent's wire from the transformer, dug holes within her property, erected poles, and rerouted the same wire so that it now passed across the front side of her property. 1. The Appellant further alleges that she purportedly paid the sum of KShs. 24,000/- to one Gideon, an employee of the Respondent purportedly working together with a Mr. Ngigi. The said persons are unknown to the Respondent. 2. It is apparent that this is a decoy employed by the Appellant to allege grounds of trespass on a property that clearly does not belong to her, and to illegally move the Respondent's lines without its knowledge or consent. 3. The Respondent holds the view that *“He who comes to equity must come with clean hands”*. The Appellant has approached both the Authority and this Honourable Tribunal with unclean hands in a bid to blindside this Honourable Tribunal into issuing orders based on misleading and undisclosed facts. 4. The Respondent submits that the Appeal is incompetent, frivolous and an abuse of the court process, and prays that the Tribunal exercises its discretion to: 5. dismiss the Appellant’s Appeal 6. uphold the Cross Appeal 7. direct the Appellant to demolish her building which is located around and along the Respondent’s infrastructure and/or wayleave trace, and 8. award costs to the Respondent. # APPELLANT’S REJOINDER AND SUBMISSIONS 1. The Appellant notes that the Respondent contends that she could not apply for electricity supply on a line that is allegedly trespassing over her suit property. The Appellant disputes this assertion and states as follows: 2. The issue of trespass was raised by the Appellant well before she sought a quotation from the Respondent as set out in the Appellant’s Witness Statement, which evidence was not controverted by the Respondent during the proceedings before the Authority. 3. In its determination dated 5th December 2025, the Authority stated that *“Technically, if the overhead line across her land lacks a valid wayleave or was rerouted within her boundary without a lawful basis, then internalising diversion costs into her quotation amounts to recovering the cost of remedying the Respondent’s own encroachment from an innocent consumer.”* 4. In reply to the Respondent’s contention that EPRA failed to conduct a site visit, Appellant states that Section 11(i) of the Energy Act, 2019 which empowers the Respondent to *“Investigate and determine complaints or disputes between parties over any matter relating to licences and licence conditions under this Act”* does not obligate the Authority to conduct a site visit. Furthermore, the Appellant had attached clear images to the record, which demonstrated the exact situation on the ground to the Authority. It is also notable that the Respondent did not request the Authority to undertake a site visit. 5. The Appellant states that the individuals alluded to in paragraph 20 hereinabove who removed the power lines were officials of the Respondent. At no point during the proceedings before the Authority did the Respondent challenge or controvert this evidence. # ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 1. Having considered the Appellant’s Record of Appeal together with the Amended Record of Appeal, the Respondent’s Statement of Response as well as submissions of the parties, the following issues arise for determination: 2. Whether EPRA erred in failing to issue enforceable orders and damages. 3. Whether the Respondent’s Cross Appeal has merit. 4. Who should bear the costs? # WHETHER EPRA ERRED IN FAILING TO ISSUE ENFORCEABLE ORDERS AND DAMAGES. 1. In its determination of 9th December 2025, the Authority found in favour of the Appellant on both trespass and the inflated quotation. Yet, it failed to issue coercive orders and declined to award damages. 2. The first issue is enforceability. EPRA is bound by Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 11(f) of the Energy Act to provide effective remedies. A decision that merely declares rights without compelling compliance is hollow. In Chev Energies v EPRA [2024], this Tribunal underscored that administrative bodies must give reasons and issue practical relief. In this matter, EPRA’s declaratory orders left the Respondent free to disregard its findings. That defeats the very purpose of statutory dispute resolution. 3. The second issue is damages. Trespass to land is actionable *per se*. Once unlawful encroachment is proved, damages flow automatically. The Appellant expressly prayed for KShs. 6,000,000 in damages, albeit without proof. 4. EPRA found trespass but failed to award any compensation. That was a misdirection in law. Courts have consistently awarded damages in similar cases: Fleetwood Enterprises [2017], Ringera [2022], and Karionji v KPLC [2025]. 5. The irresistible conclusion is that Authority erred in fact and law by failing to issue enforceable orders against the Respondent necessitating the setting aside of those declaratory orders and substituting them with enforceable directions and orders. # WHETHER THE RESPONDENT’S CROSS APPEAL HAS MERIT. 1. In its cross appeal, the Responded argued that the Authority erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Appellant was not the registered owner of the suit property where the alleged trespass purportedly occasioned by the Respondent took place. 2. The challenge to the Appellant’s ownership was premised on the Respondent’s averment that the discrepancy in citation of the suit property cannot be treated as a mere typographical error curable by amending of pleadings. 3. In the pleadings and documents on record, the suit property has sometimes been referred to as Nyandarua/Kahuru/1195 and other times as Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195. The copy of the Title Deed attached has always been for L. R. No. Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195 owned by the Appellant. 4. The Appellant has demonstrated a proprietary interest in Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195, though not in 1195. The discrepancy in numbering is material but curable, given the evidence of possession, the sale agreement and Title Deed. The Tribunal therefore recognizes the Appellant’s ownership of Nyandarua/Kahuru/11195. 5. EPRA determined that KPLC’s LV line unlawfully traversed the Appellant’s land and restricted development. The Respondent argues that the Appellant herself rerouted lines through unauthorized persons, citing alleged payments to “Gideon” and “Ngigi.” However, these allegations are unsupported by documentary evidence. The Respondent, as custodian of electricity infrastructure under the Energy Act, 2019 bears responsibility for lawful wayleaves and compliance with safety standards. 6. Trespass is actionable *per se* under Section 2 of the Trespass Act, Cap 294. The Appellant need only show proprietary interest and unauthorized entry. EPRA’s finding of unlawful encroachment was therefore sound. 7. The Tribunal upholds EPRA’s determination that the Respondent’s LV line constituted trespass and failed safety standards. 8. The Authority declined to award damages without reasons. This violated Article 47 of the Constitution (Fair Administrative Action). Trespass is actionable *per se*, and damages flow automatically. Given that the Appellant’s claim of KShs. 6,000,000 was not accompanied with appropriate proof, the Tribunal remits the issue back to the Authority for assessment and award. 9. Regarding the Appellant’s application for electricity connection and Respondent’s quotation, the Authority found the quotation unlawful. The Tribunal directs KPLC to issue a fresh, fair quotation within 30 days and effect connection within 60 days of payment. 10. The Respondent’s cross appeal challenges EPRA’s reliance on sale documents and failure to conduct a site visit. While EPRA’s process was imperfect, the substantive finding of trespass remains valid. 11. The prayer to compel demolition of the Appellant’s building is disproportionate and unsupported. The alternative prayer that the Appellant pay for rerouting is rejected, as the burden lies with the Respondent to maintain lawful infrastructure. 12. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent's cross appeal is without merit. # WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS? 1. Costs ordinarily follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Given success of the Appellant’s appeal, costs are awarded to her. # DISPOSITION 1. The Tribunal finds that EPRA erred in failing to grant effective remedies, that the Respondent’s cross appeal lacks merit and makes the following orders: 2. The determination by the Authority of 5th December 2025 is set aside to the extent that damages were not awarded. 3. The issue of damages is remitted to the Authority for assessment and award. 4. The Respondent’s cross appeal is dismissed in its entirety. 5. KPLC shall reroute the impugned LV line within 30 days at its own cost to comply with safety and planning standards. 6. KPLC to issue a fresh, fair quotation for electricity connection to the Appellant’s premises within 30 days and effect connection within 60 days of payment. 7. Costs of the appeal are awarded to the Appellant. Dated and Delivered this 11th day of May, 2026. ……………………..…… Ms. Doris K Mwirigi Vice Chairperson ……………………..…… Eng. Buge Hatibu Wasioya Member ……………………..…… Mr. Feisal Shariff Ibrahim Member SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. DORIS KINYA MWIRIGI BUGE HATIBU WASIOYA FEISAL SHARIFF IBRAHIM** ENERGY AND PETROLEUM TRIBUNAL ENERGY AND PETROLEUM TRIBUNAL Date: 2026-05-12 12:32:29