[2011] KEHC 745 (KLR)
The court found that the Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by determining the question of land ownership, which is not within the scope of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Furthermore, the Appeals Committee was improperly constituted with five...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 745 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Aggrey Kibisu Livete; Respondent: Ruth Andenyo Onzere
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 161 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; decisions of Sabatia Land Disputes Tribunal and Western Provincial Appeals Committee set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Composition of Tribunal Panel, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Aggrey Kibisu Livete
Appellant
Ruth Andenyo Onzere
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine ownership of land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/VIYALO/1317.
- 2 Whether the decision of the Appeals Committee was invalid due to improper constitution of the panel contrary to section 8(5) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by determining the question of land ownership, which is not within the scope of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Furthermore, the Appeals Committee was improperly constituted with five members instead of the statutory three, in violation of section 8(5) of the Act. These procedural and substantive defects rendered both the Appeals Committee's and the Sabatia Land Disputes Tribunal's decisions invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; decisions of Sabatia Land Disputes Tribunal and Western Provincial Appeals Committee set aside.
Orders
- The decisions of the Sabatia Land Disputes Tribunal and the Western Provincial Appeals Committee relating to land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/VIYALO/1317 are set aside.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2010
AGGREY KIBISU LIVETE...............................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
RUTH ANDENYO ONZERE..........................................................................................RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The appeal herein is premised on the grounds as follows:-
(i) That the Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee had no authority in law to pronounce a decision as to the ownership of land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/VIYALO/1317.
(ii) That the said decision having been made by the pannel of five members violated S. 8 (5) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990.
2. At the hearing, Mr. Kundu, Advocate for the Applicant argued both grounds 1 & 2 of the appeal and referred the court to Section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and Section 8 (5) of the same Act.
3. The Respondent was unrepresented. She stood by the decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal.
4. The Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Tribunal Committee decided as follows:
“1. The appeal fails and is dismissed due to lack of new evidence to support the grounds of appeal.
2. The Sabatia Land Disputes Tribunal cause ruling stands as ordered for immediate implementation.
3. The parties to invite the District Surveyor to assist the implementation of the above order and share costs.
4. The parties to keep peace.”
5. The decision of the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee is signed by five members. This contravenes the provisions of section 8 (5) of the Land Disputes Tribunal and which provides for membership of three.
6. It is clear that the panel was improperly and unlawfully constituted and in breach of section 8(5) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
7. The decision of the Sabatia District Land Disputes Tribunal upheld by the appeals Committee was as follows:-
“Ruth ANDENYO ONZERE should take possession of her portion on LR. KAKAMEGA/VIYALO/1317 as demarcated on the ground by the late ELLAM AKEMENA MAMESA. The remaining portion on LR/KAKAMEGA/VIYALO/1317 that belonged to the late mama ELISHA MUHALIA should be shared out to three people i.e JAIRUS GUMBIHI, SHEM LIVETE AKEMENA and RUTH ANDEYO ONZERE”
8. It is clear that the Tribunal decided on the question of land ownership contrary to the provisions of section 3(1) of the land Disputes Tribunal Act which provides as follows:-
“Subject to this Act, all cases of a Civil nature involving a disputes as to:
(a)The division of or the determination of boundaries to land, including land held in common.
(b)A claim to occupy or work land; or
(c)Trespass to landShall be heard and determined by a tribunal established under section 4”
9. The appeal has merit and is allowed. The Sabatia Land Disputes Tribunal and the Western Provincial Appeals Committee decision relating to land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/VIYALO/1317 are both set aside.
10. Each party to bear its own costs.
11. Orders accordingly.
Delivered, dated and signed in open court on the 8th day of December, 2011.
B. THURANIRA JADEN
J U D G E