[2007] KEHC 145 (KLR)
The court found that the Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by making orders to enforce an alleged contract of sale and to subdivide registered land, which is outside the scope of its statutory powers under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990. Furthermore, the Tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 145 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gitau Muchami; Respondent: Chairman Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Paul Kamande Mungai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 118 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Natural Justice, Certiorari, Land Disputes, Ultra Vires
- 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
Gitau Muchami
Applicant
Chairman Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Paul Kamande Mungai
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal acted ultra vires its statutory mandate.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order transfer or subdivision of registered land.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal proceedings contravened rules of natural justice by not hearing the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by making orders to enforce an alleged contract of sale and to subdivide registered land, which is outside the scope of its statutory powers under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to observe the rules of natural justice by not affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard. These defects rendered the Tribunal's proceedings and award a nullity. Accordingly, the court granted the orders of certiorari as prayed, quashing the Tribunal's award and subsequent adoption by the Magistrate's Court.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Order of certiorari granted to quash the Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal award and its adoption by the Magistrate's Court.
- Costs awarded to the ex parte applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
(MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
MISC CIV APPLI 118 OF 2005
GITAU MUCHAMI………………………………………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN MARAGUA LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL……RESPONDENT
EX PARTE
PAUL KAMANDE MUNGAI……………………………INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
Notice of Motion dated 16/11/2005 seeks Orders of Certiorari to quash the Maragua Division Land Dispute Tribunal award on the ground set out in the STATEMENT of facts and the Verifying Affidavit:-
1. that the Tribunal acted ultra vires contrary to Act No. 18 of 1990.
2. that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to transfer the Exparte applicant land or any part thereof to the 3rd Respondent.
3. Tribunal acted in contravention of rules of natural justice in that the Applicant was never heard and that the proceedings before the Tribunal were a nullity ab initio.
I have perused the verifying affidavit. The proceedings before the Tribunal were commenced by the son of Ex parte Apploicant against one Paul Kamande. The suit property was the parcel No. Lo. 6/Kiugu/1200 registered in the name of Gitau Muchami Expart Applicant on 9/3/2004.
I have also perused proceedings of Maragua Land Disputes Tribunal Case No. 218/04. Although the Ex parte applicant was named as claimant he did not speak. The dispute was the removal of caution registered against the land by Paul Kamande Mungai. The Tribunal ended up ordering the Ex parte Applicant to subdivide a piece of his land and give it to Defendant Paul Kamande the cautioner. The award was sent to the Principal Magistrate at Murang’a in DDT Case No. 161 of 2005 and it was subsequently adopted as judgment of the court which can be executed by the 3rd Respondent resulting in the subdivision of the Applicants land.
I find that the Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction in making orders that are meant to enforce an alleged contract of sale of land which was registered in the name of the Ex parte applicant.
I allow the application and grant orders as prayed.
Costs to the Ex parte Applicant.
Dated 22 of March, 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE