[2007] KEHC 997 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to registered land under the Registered Land Act, as confirmed by the applicant's status as registered proprietor since 1974. The Tribunal's award, therefore, was made without jurisdiction and was null and void....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 997 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Mwangi Muchira; Respondent: James Kamau Mwangi; Respondent: The Chairman Kahuro Division Land Disputes Tribunal
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 52 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Registered Land, Natural Justice
- 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
Daniel Mwangi Muchira
Applicant
James Kamau Mwangi
Respondent
The Chairman Kahuro Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for certiorari was filed within the prescribed time period.
- 2 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction over registered land under the Registered Land Act.
- 3 Whether the ex parte applicant was denied natural justice by not being heard before the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to registered land under the Registered Land Act, as confirmed by the applicant's status as registered proprietor since 1974. The Tribunal's award, therefore, was made without jurisdiction and was null and void. Additionally, the applicant was not given an opportunity to participate in the Tribunal proceedings, constituting a breach of the rules of natural justice. The preliminary objection on limitation was dismissed, as the application for leave was made and granted within the statutory period. Consequently, the court allowed the application for certiorari and quashed the Tribunal's...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Order of certiorari issued to quash the decision of Kahuro Division Land Disputes Tribunal in Case No. 12 of 2004.
- Order of certiorari issued to quash the proceedings before Murang’a Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Land Disputes Tribunal No. 43 of 2006 in respect of parcel No. Loc. 8/Munyutha/Ndutumi/190.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Misc Civil Case 52 of 2006
DANIEL MWANGI MUCHIRA………................................................................………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
JAMES KAMAU MWANGI………………………..............................……..................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHAIRMAN KAHURO DIVISION LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL…...........2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
Notice of Motion dated 7/6/2006 seeks orders of:-
(1) Certiorari to quash the decision of Kahuro Division Land Disputes Tribunal in Case No. 12 of 2004 and
(2)Proceedings before Murang’a Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Land Disputes Tribunal No. 43 of 2006 in respect of parcel No. Loc. 8/Munyutha/Ndutumi/190.
The application is supported by statutory statement setting out the grounds upon which orders are sought affidavit in verification of facts sworn by Daniel Mwangi Muchira the ex parte applicant. There is a spirited effort to terminate the application by preliminary objection filed by first Respondent. He states that these proceedings are time barred as having been filed outside the prescribed time. However the record shows that leave was granted on 31/5/2006 after the application was made on 26/5/2006.
The annexures show that the Tribunal case was heard and decided on 9/3/2005. The award was received at Murang’a Law Courts on 15/3/2006. The award of the Tribunal does not become a decree that can be executed until it is filed in Resident Magistrate’s Court and subsequently adopted as court decree. I do not therefore find these proceedings as having been filed out of time. Regarding the merit of this application I have noted that the land in dispute is registered land under the Registered Land Act Cap. 300. Annexure “DMM1” indicated the Exparte Applicant as Registered proprietor since 1974.
I also note that the ex parte applicant did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal thus is in the breach of rules of natural justice.
Upon considering all submissions made by Counsel and upon reading the Motion and Statutory statement with verifying affidavit and annexures, I am satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal was reached without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of section 3 (1) and 13 3) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act 18/90.
I therefore allow the application and grant orders as prayed.
No order as to costs.
Dated this 13th March, 2007.
J .N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE.
13/3/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue –Clerk
First Respondent present in person
Ruling read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE