[2004] KEHC 1265 (KLR)
The High Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990, does not provide for a direct appeal to the High Court from the Land Disputes Tribunal. Instead, Section 8(1) of the Act requires that an appeal first be made to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee for the relevant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1265 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Amos Ndutumo Wainaina; Respondent: Charles Kariuki Kimemia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 200 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Appeals Procedure, Competency of Appeal
- 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
Amos Ndutumo Wainaina
Appellant
Charles Kariuki Kimemia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an appeal lies to the High Court directly from the Land Disputes Tribunal under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990.
- 2 Whether the appeal as filed is competent under the applicable statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990, does not provide for a direct appeal to the High Court from the Land Disputes Tribunal. Instead, Section 8(1) of the Act requires that an appeal first be made to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee for the relevant province. Only after a decision by the Appeals Committee can a further appeal be made to the High Court. Since the appellant had not followed this statutory procedure and instead appealed directly from the Tribunal and the Magistrate's confirmation of the award, the appeal was not properly before the court. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as incompetent and awarded costs...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed as incompetent.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO 200 OF 1999
AMOS NDUTUMO WAINAINA ………………………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
CHARLES KARIUKI KIMEMIA …………..…………. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Section 8 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act 1990 (Act No 18 of 1990) provides for the procedure of appeal from a decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal established under Section 4 of that Act. Section 8 (9) of the Act provides that there is no direct appeal to this court from a decision of that Tribunal. Before one can appeal to this court, he is required by Section 8 (1) to appeal to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee established under Section 9 (1) of the Act for the province in which the land is the subject matter of the dispute is situated. An appeal to this court can only be from the decision of such an Appeals Committee.
In the Amended Memorandum of Appeal filed on behalf of the Appeal, it is stated that the appeal was against the decision of “the Land Dispute Tribunal in case No 660 of 1998 and the Judgment delivered by the Honourable Magistrate Mrs L W Gitari in Civil Case No 49 of 1999 … confirming the award (of the Tribunal) and the subsequent Ruling … (refusing stay of execution pending appeal) …” Consequently, the Appellant sought that “the Tribunal Award and the Honourable Lower Court’s Ruling be set aside and the appeal allowed.”
As can be seen, the appeal is incompetent as the decisions appealed from are not contemplated nor provided for in the Land Disputes Tribunals Act in which the appeal is purportedly based. I, therefore, accept Mr Wandaka’s submission in this respect and order that the appeal is incompetent.
On that conclusion alone, I dismiss the Appellant’s appeal with costs to the Respondent. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of October, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM JUDGE