[2006] KEHC 274 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of leave to apply for an order of certiorari, as the Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal may have acted outside its jurisdiction by purporting to cancel a land title, a matter beyond its statutory mandate. The court further held that, at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Anne Kaboi Njenga; Respondent: Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Patrick Musundi Kapuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 68 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Apply for Certiorari
- Outcome
- Leave to apply for certiorari granted; leave to operate as stay of Tribunal award; costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Title 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
Anne Kaboi Njenga
Applicant
Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Patrick Musundi Kapuru
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Apply for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine a dispute relating to title to land.
- 2 Whether the application for leave to apply for certiorari was made within the statutory six-month limitation period under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of leave to apply for an order of certiorari, as the Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal may have acted outside its jurisdiction by purporting to cancel a land title, a matter beyond its statutory mandate. The court further held that, at this preliminary stage, the six-month limitation period under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act did not bar the application, but left the issue open for argument at the substantive hearing. Accordingly, leave was granted and the leave was ordered to operate as a stay of the Tribunal's award.
Court Disposition
Leave to apply for certiorari granted; leave to operate as stay of Tribunal award; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for an order of certiorari in terms of prayer 1 of the Chamber Summons dated 6th June, 2006.
- The leave granted shall operate as a stay of the award of the Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal in Tribunal case No.4 of 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
Misc Appli 68 of 2006
ANNE KABOI NJENGA………....………………...APPLICANT
V E R S U S
LIKUYANI LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL....…RESPONDENT
A N D
PATRICK MUSUNDI KAPURU…….....INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
By his ex-parte application dated 6th June, 2006 made to this court on 9th June, 2006, the applicant, Anne Kaboi Njenga, sought under Rule 1 of Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules leave to apply for the order of CERTIORARI to quash the proceedings and award of Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2005 made in Tribunal case No.4 of 2005 purporting to cancel land title No.179 (sic) which award was forwarded to Kakamega Chief Magistrate Court on 27. 1.06 for adoption. The applicant contends that the Likuyani Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No.18 of 1990 to hear or determine the dispute as it related to title to land.
On the face of it the applicant appears to have a prima facie case for the grant of leave to apply for certiorari. I observe however that section 9 (3) of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26, requires in the case of an application for an order of certiorari that application for leave be made not later than six months after the date of the judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings or such shorter period as may be prescribed under any law. Whether the award and proceedings sought to be quashed are caught up by section 9 (3) (supra) is open to argument. At this, stage and for my part, I hold the view that the six months limitation of time does not in the circumstances of this application apply although any of the parties is at liberty to canvass the issue during the hearing of the Notice Motion if contrary view is held.
In the result, I grant the applicant the leave sought to apply for an order of certiorari in terms of prayer 1 of the Chamber Summons application dated 6th June, 2006. I also order that the leave herein granted shall operate as a stay of the said award in terms of prayer 2 of the said application. Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 29th day of November, 2006
G.B. KARIUKI
J U D G E