[2009] KEHC 2260 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2260 (KLR)

The court held that although the tribunals lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes involving title to land, a close examination of the respondent's claim revealed it was not a direct challenge to the appellant's title but a claim to occupy and work a portion of the land, which falls within the tribunals' jurisdiction under section 3(1)(b) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. Even if the tribunals had exceeded their jurisdiction, the awards had already been adopted as judgments of the court, decrees issued and executed, and no lawful challenge or review had been made. Setting aside the award at this stage would result in conflicting decrees, an untenable situation. Therefore, the appeal...

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Francis Muriithi Gitata; Respondent: Margaret Wanjiku Kung’u
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Case Number
Civil Appeal 78 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal From Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals, Title to Land, Adoption of Tribunal Awards, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals Title to Land Adoption of Tribunal Awards Execution of Decrees

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Muriithi Gitata

Appellant

Margaret Wanjiku Kung’u

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal From Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine a dispute involving title to land.
  2. 2 Whether the awards of the tribunals, having been adopted as judgments of the court and executed, could be set aside on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the tribunals lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes involving title to land, a close examination of the respondent's claim revealed it was not a direct challenge to the appellant's title but a claim to occupy and work a portion of the land, which falls within the tribunals' jurisdiction under section 3(1)(b) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. Even if the tribunals had exceeded their jurisdiction, the awards had already been adopted as judgments of the court, decrees issued and executed, and no lawful challenge or review had been made. Setting aside the award at this stage would result in conflicting decrees, an untenable situation. Therefore, the appeal...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.