By BOB WASWANI
March 27, 2026| Kenya Power and Lighting Company has emerged victorious in a protracted land dispute spanning more than a decade, after the Environment and Land Court in Busia dismissed a case filed against the utility firm, ruling that the plaintiff lacked legal standing and that the matter should have been pursued through alternative dispute resolution channels.
Justice Boaz N. Olao delivered the judgment bringing to a close litigation that had been pending before the court since 2013 and effectively handing Kenya Power a clean win.
The case was filed by Samuel Laringo Namenge Thomas Muhokho, who sued Kenya Power claiming that the company had trespassed onto land parcel No. Bukhayo/Kisoko/4173 in or around March 2013. According to the plaintiff, Kenya Power employees erected electricity poles and service lines on the property without consent, damaging 11 eucalyptus trees valued at Kshs.243,975.90 and maize crops valued at Kshs.3,290. He sought compensation of Kshs.247,650, mesne profits, interest, and an order compelling Kenya Power to remedy the alleged trespass and realign the poles and service lines.
However, the court found fundamental flaws in the plaintiff’s case that proved fatal to his claims.
Justice Olao first addressed the question of jurisdiction, noting that the Energy Act 2006 was the applicable law when the suit was first filed. Sections 46, 47, and 48 of the Act establish a clear procedure for disputes arising from the erection of electricity supply lines on private property, requiring such matters to be referred to the Energy Regulatory Commission, with appeals going to the Energy Tribunal.
“The dispute herein ought to have been referred to the Commission established under Section 4 of the Energy Act,” Justice Olao ruled. Citing the Court of Appeal decision in Speaker of National Assembly v Karume, the judge emphasized that where a clear procedure for redress exists under the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure must be strictly followed.
The court further referenced the doctrine of exhaustion, noting that courts should be fora of last resort, not the first port of call when disputes arise.
Beyond the jurisdictional issue, the court also determined that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to bring the suit. The suit land is registered in the name of the plaintiff’s wife, Florence Cheptai Namenge. While she had donated two Powers of Attorney to her husband to enable him to file the suit, neither was found legally effective.
The first Power of Attorney, dated February 20, 2013, was not registered and no stamp duty was paid, rendering it inadmissible as evidence under the Stamp Duty Act. The second Power of Attorney, dated and filed on January 5, 2018, was properly registered and stamped but could not operate retrospectively to validate a suit filed five years earlier.
Justice Olao cited the Court of Appeal decision in Esha Said Salim v Salim Kibwana Hamisi & Another, noting that a Power of Attorney can only be effective from the date it was executed and cannot operate retrospectively.
The court also noted that proper procedures under the Energy Act had not been followed, with Kenya Power’s witness confirming during cross-examination that while a power line passed through the land in question, the required statutory mechanisms for addressing such disputes were never invoked by the plaintiff.
The court ultimately dismissed the suit with costs awarded to Kenya Power, bringing a definitive end to litigation that had consumed judicial resources for over twelve years.