[2012] KEHC 878 (KLR)
The court held that the Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters involving title to registered land, as such jurisdiction is not conferred by the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The tribunal's decision, therefore, was a nullity. Consequently, the adoption of the tribunal's award as a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 878 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benjamin Kipkosgei Rono; Applicant: Alice Chepkurui Rono; Applicant: Edwin Ngeno; Respondent: Chairman Sigor Land Tribunal; Respondent: The Principal Magistrate Bomet; Respondent: Nicholas Bariwos
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 34 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Certiorari
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Order of certiorari granted. Tribunal decision and all proceedings quashed. Costs to the applicants against the 3rd Respondent.
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Tribunals, Certiorari, Registered 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
Benjamin Kipkosgei Rono
Applicant
Alice Chepkurui Rono
Applicant
Edwin Ngeno
Applicant
Chairman Sigor Land Tribunal
Respondent
The Principal Magistrate Bomet
Respondent
Nicholas Bariwos
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on a dispute involving title to registered land.
- 2 Whether the adoption of the tribunal's award by the Bomet Principal Magistrate's Court was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters involving title to registered land, as such jurisdiction is not conferred by the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The tribunal's decision, therefore, was a nullity. Consequently, the adoption of the tribunal's award as a judgment by the Bomet Principal Magistrate's Court was also invalid. The court found that the ex parte applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the issuance of an order of certiorari to quash the tribunal's decision and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Order of certiorari granted. Tribunal decision and all proceedings quashed. Costs to the applicants against the 3rd Respondent.
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued removing into the High Court and quashing the order of the Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal dated 29th July 2011 and all proceedings arising therefrom.
- The award adopted as judgment of the court in Bomet Principal Magistrate’s Court Land Case No. 5 of 2011 is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kericho
Miscellaneous Application 34 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
BENJAMIN KIPKOSGEI RONO & 2 OTHERS......................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN SIGOR LAND TRIBUNAL..........................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE BOMET....................................2ND RESPONDENT
NICHOLAS BARIWOS................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
BENJAMIN KIPKOSGEI RONO, ALICE CHEPKURUI RONO, EDWIN NGENO herein after Ex parte Applicants in their Notice of Motion dated 19th October 2011 seek this court’s order of certiorari removing into this court for purposes of quashing an order dated 24th July 2011 together with the entire proceedings arising therefrom made by the Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal and thereafter adopted as judgment of the court by Bomet Principal Magistrate’s Court in Land Case No. 5 of 2011.
In the matter, EDWIN NGENO, the 3rd Respondent filed a claim in Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990. The subject matter was Kericho/Sigor/520 land registered in the name of Kiprono Arap Mase (deceased). The verdict was in his favour. Thereafter it was adopted as Judgment of the court by the Bomet Principal Magistrate and a decree drawn thereto. The award in the opinion of the applicant being ultra-vires as it touched on a dispute over title he opted to file the application herein.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents on being served with the application disregarded it. The 3rd Respondent filed a replying affidavit acknowledging the fact that the ex parte applicants were dependants and beneficiaries of the estate of Kiprono Arap Mase who was the registered proprietor of the land, Kericho/Sigor/510. He purchased the said land per his averment and has been in occupation for 17 years. The applicant moved to occupy his land hence he sought redress from the tribunal. He called for striking out of the application as it disclosed no case against him.
At the hearing however, despite the fact that the 3rd Respondent was served with the hearing notice he did not turn up to respond to the application.
I have considered the application, the statements of facts, the affidavit in support and the reply thereto. Counsel for the ex parte applicants Mr. Orina submitted that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to reach the finding to alienate land as it was registered. He argued that the Tribunal only had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim under customary law and according to the Judicature Act, customary law could only be applicable if not inconsistent with any written law.
In this case a perusal of proceedings that were before the Disputes Land Tribunal were in respect of Land Parcel No. Kericho/Sigor/510. Right at the outset, the members of the tribunal were aware that the land was registered under the Registered Land Act (cap 300). It was also within their knowledge that the land in which the 3rd Respondent claimed beneficial interest was registered in the name of a deceased person.
The issue having been title to land the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim. In the circumstances, their decision is null and void. That decision having been a nullity, the court which adopted it cannot be said to have legalized it. The Judgment entered by the court at Bomet, and the decree thereto are invalid.
Taking all these into consideration, I have no doubt that the Ex parte applicants have demonstrated a case for issuance of the order sought.
An order of certiorari shall therefore issue removing into this court, and quashing forthwith the order of the Sigor Land Disputes Tribunal dated 29th July 2011 with all proceedings arising therefrom pursuant to the award adopted as judgment of the court in the Bomet Principal Magistrate’s Court Land Case No. 5 of 2011.
The 3rd Respondent shall bear costs of the application.
DATEDat KERICHO this 28TH day of November 2012.
............................
LILIAN N. MUTENDE
JUDGE
COUNSEL APPEARING
Mr. Orina, for the Applicant
AG for the 1st and 2nd Respondents
Nyaingiri & Co. for Interested party
Mr. R. Koech- court clerk