The High Court declined to issue an order blocking Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) from disconnecting electricity supply to essential facilities operated by the Nairobi and Mombasa county governments, as well as the other 45 counties.
Justice Jairus Ngaah instead directed that parties to appear in court on May 20 for a ruling of a preliminary objection by KPLC challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the case
The petitioner, Charles Rubia, moved to court seeking an order barring Kenya Power from cutting off electricity to hospitals, water pumping stations, and street lighting.
He argued that Kenya Power, as a national entity, should resolve disputes through legally established mechanisms rather than resorting to draconian actions like disconnecting electricity to county offices.
He contended that by cutting off power without first exhausting intergovernmental dispute resolution channels, Kenya Power is creating a constitutional crisis concerning the management of national utilities in the devolved system and disrupting essential public services.
Through his lawyer, Elkana Mogaka, Rubia highlights an ongoing conflict between Kenya Power and the Nairobi County Government.
According to court documents, this dispute escalated when Kenya Power disconnected electricity to several Nairobi County offices on February 14, due to unpaid bills.
Rubia further argues that when negotiations between different government entities fail, Kenya Power is required to formally declare a dispute and refer the matter to the Summit, the Council, or another intergovernmental body established under the law.
“The dispute is an intergovernmental dispute and ought to have been tried using methods provided by intergovernmental act,” argues Mogaka.
However, in its objection, KPLC contended that the dispute falls outside the court’s jurisdiction, citing multiple provisions of the Energy Act, 2019, and related regulations.
The power utility company insisted that matters involving electricity disputes should be addressed through the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) and the Energy Tribunal, as required by law.
KPLC, through its lawyer Lynn Owano, argued that the petitioner’s case violates the prescribed legal framework, including Article 159(2)(c) and 169(1)(d) of the Constitution as well as Sections 9(2) and (3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
The company is therefore urging the court to strike out the petition, arguing that Rubia is “speculating there will be a cut of electricity supply”
“This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute and therefore, the Petition and Notice of Motion both dated 28th February 2025 as against the 1″ Respondent and together with all consequential orders sought by the Petitioner ought to be struck out with costs because the same offend the provisions of Article 159(2)(c) and 169(1)(d) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 as read with sections 9(2) and (3) of the Fair Administration Action Act, 2015,” read court documents.
Mogaka argued that the objection is misguided.
“This a monopoly with no other competitors in the market,” said Mogaka.
