[2012] KEHC 169 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 169 (KLR)

The court found that although the Appeals Committee's decision was signed by six members contrary to the statutory requirement for a three-member panel, the substantive issue before the Tribunal and Appeals Committee was the identification of a boundary, which was within their jurisdiction under the Land Disputes...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 169 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Benedicto Angweye Lusichi; Respondent: Alfred Shumila Manyonje
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 24 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Boundary Determination, Appeal Timelines, Composition of Appeals Committee
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction Boundary Determination Appeal Timelines Composition of Appeals Committee

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benedicto Angweye Lusichi

Appellant

Alfred Shumila Manyonje

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Provincial Appeals Committee was properly constituted in accordance with the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal to the High Court was filed within the statutory time limit and with the necessary leave.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the Appeals Committee's decision was signed by six members contrary to the statutory requirement for a three-member panel, the substantive issue before the Tribunal and Appeals Committee was the identification of a boundary, which was within their jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. However, the appeal to the High Court was filed outside the statutory sixty-day period and without leave of the court, as required by Section 8(9) of the Act. As a result, the court held that the appeal was incompetent and must be struck out, regardless of the merits of the grounds raised by the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out with costs to the appellant.