[2012] KEHC 2392 (KLR)
The High Court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes concerning the ownership of registered land, as such matters fall outside the scope of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The Tribunal's award of portions of registered land to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2392 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Daniel Ndemaki Marango; Respondent: Benjamin Marango; Respondent: Richard J. Wekesa; Respondent: Moses Lusweti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 4 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Ownership of Registered Land, Nullity of Proceedings, Appeals Process
- 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 Ndemaki Marango
Appellant
Benjamin Marango
Respondent
Richard J. Wekesa
Respondent
Moses Lusweti
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to ownership of registered land.
- 2 Whether the proceedings and awards of the Tribunal and Committee were nullities for want of jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether the Appeals Committee denied the appellant a hearing before rendering its decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes concerning the ownership of registered land, as such matters fall outside the scope of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The Tribunal's award of portions of registered land to the respondents was therefore ultra vires and a nullity. Additionally, the Appeals Committee failed to accord the appellant a hearing, further invalidating its decision. Consequently, the proceedings and awards of both the Tribunal and the Committee, as well as any subordinate court order adopting such awards, were nullified and set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant.
- The award of the Tribunal and the Appeals Committee is nullified and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL APPEAL 4 OF 2003
(Appeal from the decision of the Western Provincial Land Appeals Committee dated 26th November 2002)
DANIEL NDEMAKI MARANGO...............................................................APPELLANT
~VRS~
BENJAMIN MARANGO.................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
RICHARD J. WEKESA.................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
MOSES LUSWETI........................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This case begun when the Respondents went to the Land Disputes Tribunal at Webuye claiming portions from land parcel of land no.Bokoli/Kituni/133 registered in the name of the Appellant. The dispute was heard following which the 1st Respondent was awarded 20 acres, the 2nd Respondent was awarded 45 acres and the 3rd Respondent was awarded 10 acres of the suit land. The Appellant was aggrieved by the decision and appealed to the Western Provincial Land Disputes Committee which dismissed the appeal with costs. The Appellant then appealed to this court.
I have read the proceedings. I agree with Mr. Makali for the Appellant that the dispute between the parties fell outside section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act no.18 of 1990. It was not a dispute as to the division of or the determination of boundaries to land including land held in common; a claim to occupy or work land; or trespass to land. It was a claim for the ownership of registered land. By its decision, the Tribunal in effect awarded portions of the land registered in the name of the Appellant to the Respondents. The Tribunal and the Committee did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute or make the awards in question (Jotham Amunavi v. The Chairman Sabatia Division Land Disputes Tribunals and another, Civil Appeal no.256 of 2002 at Kisumu). The proceedings and awards of both the Tribunal and the Committee were a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
The complaint by the Appellant that Appeals Committee did not hear him on the appeal before rendering its decision is also borne out by the proceedings. On the basis of Savings & Loan (K) Ltd v. Odongo [1987] KLR 294, the decision was a nullity.
There were other grounds, but what I have said is enough to resolve the appeal. The appeal is allowed with costs. The award of the Tribunal and the Appeals Committee and the order of the subordinate court adopting any such award are hereby nullified and set aside.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 20th day September, 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE