[2013] KEHC 3302 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3302 (KLR)

The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the division of land and the right to occupy or work land between the appellant and respondent, who are spouses, under customary law as contemplated by section 3(7) of the Act. The Tribunal did not purport to determine ownership or registration of title, but rather addressed the respondent's right to occupy and share the land. The composition of both Tribunals complied with statutory requirements, and the appellant's absence from the Tribunal proceedings was due to his own failure to attend despite being summoned, negating any claim of being condemned unheard....

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3302 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: F.B.J.O; Respondent: A.N.O
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
Civil Appeal 23 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; specific awards set aside; remainder of Tribunal decision upheld; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Division of Matrimonial Property, Right to Occupy Land, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction Division of Matrimonial Property Right to Occupy Land Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F.B.J.O

Appellant

A.N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal and Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine the dispute under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
  2. 2 Whether the composition of the Tribunal and Appeals Committee was lawful under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were a nullity ab initio due to alleged procedural irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the division of land and the right to occupy or work land between the appellant and respondent, who are spouses, under customary law as contemplated by section 3(7) of the Act. The Tribunal did not purport to determine ownership or registration of title, but rather addressed the respondent's right to occupy and share the land. The composition of both Tribunals complied with statutory requirements, and the appellant's absence from the Tribunal proceedings was due to his own failure to attend despite being summoned, negating any claim of being condemned unheard....

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; specific awards set aside; remainder of Tribunal decision upheld; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Awards granting respondent 9.5 acres and ordering appellant to process title deed are set aside.
  • Remainder of the Tribunal and Appeals Committee decisions are upheld.