[2009] KEHC 2323 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to determine a dispute relating to the ownership of registered land and ordering the applicant to lose half of his land to the Interested Party. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act only empowers the Tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2323 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Migori District Land Dispute Tribunal (Suba West Division); Respondent: Migori Principal Magistrate’s Court; Applicant: Jacktone Ayado Okumu; Respondent: Gabriel Nyaronge Okumu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Appeal 12 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review (certiorari and Prohibition)
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Ownership Disputes, Certiorari, Prohibition
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Migori District Land Dispute Tribunal (Suba West Division)
Respondent
Migori Principal Magistrate’s Court
Respondent
Jacktone Ayado Okumu
Applicant
Gabriel Nyaronge Okumu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review (certiorari and Prohibition)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to ownership of registered land.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision awarding a portion of the applicant's land to the Interested Party was ultra vires and a nullity.
- 3 Whether orders of certiorari and prohibition should issue to quash the Tribunal's decision and prohibit its adoption by the Magistrate's Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to determine a dispute relating to the ownership of registered land and ordering the applicant to lose half of his land to the Interested Party. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act only empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate on matters relating to division or determination of boundaries, occupation, or trespass, but not ownership of registered land. As such, the Tribunal's proceedings and decision were ultra vires, null, and void. The court therefore allowed the application for judicial review, quashed the Tribunal's decision, and prohibited the Magistrate's Court from adopting or...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The proceedings and decision of the 1st Respondent dated 5th December, 2007 and lodged in court on 3rd April, 2008 are quashed by an order of certiorari.
- An order of prohibition is issued prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from hearing, deliberating, or adopting the decision of the 1st Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISII
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 12 OF 2008
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JACKTONE AYADO OKUMU FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL ACT NO.18 OF 1990
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SUB WEST LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL
AND
IN THE MATTER OF PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT MIGORI
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………………….…….APPLICANT
BETWEEN
MIGORIDISTRICT LANDDISPUTE (SUBA WEST DIVISION) ……………………………………………………………………..………. 1ST RESPONDENT
MIGORI PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT ………………..…… 2ND RESPONDENT
AND
JACTONE AYADO OKUMU ……………………………………………….… APPLICANT
VERSUS
GABRIEL NYARONGE OKUMU …………….... INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT
RULING
This Notice of Motion brought under Order 53 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8and 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26 Law of Kenya was not defended. It was filed pursuant to leave granted on 16th April, 2008. The applicant sought an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the proceedings and the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 5th December, 2007 and lodged in court on 3rd April, 2008 in which the Respondent awarded the Interested Party a portion of the applicant’s land parcel NO.SUNA WEST/WASWETA II/1054. An order of prohibition was also sought prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from hearing, deliberating or adopting the decision by the first Respondent.
The undisputed facts of the application are that the applicant is the registered owner of this parcel of land as evidenced by the annexed Title Deed.
The Interested Party lodged a claim against the applicant at the Migori District Land Dispute Tribunal (Suba West Division) (1st Respondent). He was claiming a share of the land. The dispute was heard and a verdict reached allocating the Interested an equal share in the land. The District Surveyor and the District Land Registrar were directed to visit the land to cause the sub-division and eventual sharing. That award has been filed at the Migori Principal Magistrate’s Court
(2nd Respondent) for adoption as judgment of the court. Execution of the judgment will follow adoption.
This application was prosecution for the Applicant by Mr. Kwanga. The contention by the Applicant was that the 1st Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction donated by section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No.189 of 1990 when it ordered that the applicant loses half of his registered land to the Interested Party.
From the provisions of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act the tribunal was only empowered by law to adjudicate on disputes relating to the division of or the determination of boundaries of land, including land held in common; a claim to occupy or work land; or trespass on land. The Tribunal herein did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute relating to the ownership of the land (Beatrice M’ Marete vs. Republic and others, Civil Appeal No.259 of 2000 at Nyeri).
The Tribunal exceeded its mandate and the entire proceedings were as nullity. The application is hereby allowed with costs.
Dated at Kisii this 25th day of May, 2009.
O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE
25/5/2009
Before A. O. Muchelule – Judge
Mongare cc.
Mr. Odero for Mr. Kwanga for the Applicant.
Court: Ruling in open court.
O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE