Kenya Power has been ordered to pay KSh22.3 million after losing a decades-old private-land dispute.
The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu dismissed the company’s appeal on September 30, 2026.
Justice Edward Wabwoto upheld an earlier compensation award against the electricity distributor.
The award followed claims that power lines crossed Vitalis Ouma Osano’s private property without consent.
Osano owns Kisumu/Kanyakwar “B”/135, a four-hectare parcel acquired and registered in August 1984.
The dispute, however, reaches back two decades before Osano obtained registered ownership.
Kenya Power said its oldest electricity line had existed on the property since 1964.
Another line was reportedly constructed approximately 10 years later, around 1974.
The company argued that government approvals had authorised those earlier installations.
The court ultimately found that argument insufficient to establish lawful occupation of Osano’s specific parcel.
Old Lines
Kenya Power’s defence rested heavily on an alleged eight-metre road reserve.
The company argued that its infrastructure remained within that reserve and required no private consent.
It also relied upon historical correspondence involving roads, lands and government administrative officials.
Those records included a July 1964 letter from the Chief Engineer of Roads.
Kenya Power further relied upon a 1974 letter involving Kisumu Municipality’s Town Engineer.
The company argued those approvals created a lawful wayleave for electricity infrastructure.
It also invoked section 28 of the Land Registration Act concerning overriding interests.
However, Justice Wabwoto found that the historical documents did not identify Osano’s specific parcel.
Nor did they establish a registered wayleave over the disputed property.
The judge therefore rejected the suggestion that those documents conclusively proved lawful occupation.
The court also examined evidence from Kenya Power’s own survey and wayleaves officers.
Its Wayleaves Officer acknowledged that three electricity lines crossed the property.
That admission weakened the company’s argument that all infrastructure remained within road reserve.
The court additionally found shortcomings in the company’s survey evidence.
The survey relied upon general boundaries rather than precisely established parcel beacons.
That evidence could not conclusively establish where the road reserve ended.
The Tribunal had also physically visited the disputed property before delivering its decision.
Justice Wabwoto said those first-hand observations deserved considerable weight during the appeal.
Fresh Works
The oldest lines, however, were not ultimately the decisive issue before Justice Wabwoto.
The court found the 2018 and 2019 works independently supported the trespass finding.
Those works occurred decades after Osano became the property’s registered proprietor.
Kenya Power argued that it merely upgraded existing infrastructure during those later interventions.
The judge rejected that distinction under the circumstances established by the evidence.
Kenya Power entered registered private land without proving Osano’s consent beforehand.
It also failed to demonstrate that compensation had been offered before undertaking those works.
The court connected that conduct directly to statutory requirements governing energy infrastructure.
The Tribunal had earlier found that Kenya Power trespassed during works conducted in March 2018.
It also found further unlawful works occurred during August 2019.
The Tribunal concluded that no consent, authority or permission had been obtained.
It further found that Osano had received no notice concerning the planned works.
That finding became especially important because Osano’s ownership was already formally registered.
The court therefore rejected Kenya Power’s attempt to rely solely upon older infrastructure approvals.
The judge held that the later works independently supported the continuing trespass finding.
That conclusion opened the door to both general and special damages.
Millions Awarded
The Tribunal originally awarded Osano KSh21,822,713 in special damages.
That figure consisted of compensation for destroyed trees and permanently affected land.
Forest Officer reports valued the destroyed trees and related assessment costs at KSh1,310,828.
A separate valuation placed the affected land portion at KSh20,511,885.
The valuer assessed approximately 0.65 hectares, equivalent to roughly 1.6 acres.
He concluded that the electricity infrastructure had permanently affected its beneficial use.
Kenya Power did not commission an alternative valuation to challenge that assessment.
It similarly called no forester to dispute the valuation of the destroyed trees.
Justice Wabwoto regarded those omissions as significant when assessing the competing evidence.
The judge also noted that Kenya Power failed to challenge the valuation effectively during cross-examination.
A disagreement raised later through submissions could not substitute for proper evidential testing.
The court consequently affirmed the entire KSh21,822,713 special damages award.
The compensation for the affected land became particularly significant.
Osano remained the registered owner despite losing meaningful use of part of his property.
The court accepted that electricity infrastructure had permanently restricted beneficial use.
That finding justified compensation despite ownership remaining registered in Osano’s name.
The court treated the interference as a substantive invasion of protected property rights.
The result was compensation for more than physical damage to vegetation.
It reflected the assessed value of land whose practical use had been substantially compromised.
The Tribunal separately awarded KSh500,000 for continuing trespass.
Justice Wabwoto upheld that award, stressing that trespass is actionable without proving particular financial loss.
The injury arises from interference with the owner’s exclusive possession of the property.
The judge found KSh500,000 reasonable given the circumstances surrounding the continuing occupation.
He noted that three sets of electricity lines crossed Osano’s four-hectare property.
The court also considered the destruction of indigenous trees without notice or compensation.
It concluded that the general damages figure was not inordinately high.
Appeal Fails
Kenya Power also challenged photographs relied upon to establish the property’s condition.
The company argued that the photographs lacked certificates required under section 106B.
That argument failed for three separate reasons identified by the appellate court.
First, Kenya Power did not object when Osano’s photographs were produced.
The judge said evidential objections should ordinarily arise when documents are tendered.
Second, Kenya Power itself had produced uncertified photographs during the proceedings.
The court found it inconsistent to challenge Osano’s photographs while relying upon its own.
Third, photographs were not the principal evidence supporting the Tribunal’s findings.
The Tribunal had personally visited the property and observed the disputed infrastructure.
Even without the photographs, the judge found sufficient evidence supporting the Tribunal’s conclusions.
The appellate court therefore dismissed every substantive challenge raised by Kenya Power.
It affirmed the Tribunal’s judgement delivered on March 26, 2024.
The KSh21,822,713 special damages award consequently remains payable to Osano.
That amount attracts court-rate interest from June 13, 2022, when proceedings began.
The KSh500,000 general damages award also remains payable to Osano.
Interest on that amount runs from March 26, 2024, when judgement was delivered.
Kenya Power must additionally meet the costs incurred during the appeal.
The principal compensation therefore stands at KSh22,322,713 before interest and costs.
The original Tribunal proceedings followed an earlier jurisdictional battle before the Environment Court.
In September 2021, the Environment and Land Court directed Osano towards the Energy Tribunal.
The court held that disputes involving energy infrastructure belonged before the specialised Tribunal.
Osano subsequently filed his Tribunal claim on June 13, 2022.
The Tribunal ruled in his favour almost two years later.
Kenya Power then appealed, extending the dispute into the Environment and Land Court.
That appeal has now failed, leaving the compensation award substantially intact.
The ruling carries wider implications for utilities operating infrastructure across privately registered Kenyan land.
Historical electricity infrastructure does not automatically establish lawful occupation of particular private property.
READ ALSO: Kenya Power Ordered to Pay Former Manager KSh2.4 Million After Years in Acting Role
Likewise, upgrading older infrastructure does not necessarily eliminate statutory consent requirements.
For Osano, the September 2026 judgement ends a prolonged fight over meaningful use of his land.
For Kenya Power, however, interest continues accumulating until the judgement is satisfied.
At the centre of the ruling lies a straightforward property-rights principle.
A registered owner cannot permanently lose meaningful land use without lawful authority.
Where such interference occurs, the law can require compensation for the resulting loss.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
