[2007] KEHC 1017 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by entertaining issues of trust and making determinations regarding ownership of land registered under the Registered Land Act. The Tribunal's statutory mandate does not extend to such matters, which are reserved for the High Court and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1017 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mwii Kamunya; Respondent: Kirinyaga District & LDT; Respondent: Raphael Mugera Karani; Respondent: Judy Wangechi Karani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 94 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs awarded to the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Registered Land Act, Judicial Review Certiorari, Prohibition Orders, Trust in Land Disputes
- 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
John Mwii Kamunya
Applicant
Kirinyaga District & LDT
Respondent
Raphael Mugera Karani
Respondent
Judy Wangechi Karani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to trust and ownership of land registered under the Registered Land Act.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal acted in excess of its statutory powers by awarding land to a non-party and failing to file all required documents with its award.
- 3 Whether the decision of the Tribunal should be quashed by an order of certiorari and execution prohibited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by entertaining issues of trust and making determinations regarding ownership of land registered under the Registered Land Act. The Tribunal's statutory mandate does not extend to such matters, which are reserved for the High Court and subordinate courts. The Tribunal further erred by awarding land to a non-party and failing to comply with procedural requirements for filing documents. As a result, the court granted orders of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's decision and prohibition to restrain execution, with costs awarded to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Orders
- The decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal in Case No. 21/2006 is quashed by an order of certiorari.
- An order of prohibition is issued restraining execution of the Tribunal's decision.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Misc Appli 94 of 2006
JOHN MWII KAMUNYA ……………………………………....………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIRINYAGA DISTRICT & LDT……………………….…......……1ST RESPONDENT
RAPHAEL MUGERA KARANI………..…………....…....………2ND RESPONDENT
JUDY WANGECHI KARANI……………………..………………3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
Application by Notice of Motion dated 7/8/2006 in Judicial Review seeks orders of Certiorari to quash the decision of Land Disputes Tribunal in its Case No. 21/2006 and an order of prohibition restraining Execution of such decision grounds are that the Tribunal acted contrary to law in excess of jurisdiction interfering with land registered under Registered Land Act Cap. 300. The claim was also based on Trust and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with issues relating to trust. That the tribunal proceeded to give land to somebody who was not a party to proceedings and who had made no claims. The Tribunal failed to file with the award all depositions and other documents produced before it. Affidavit shows that the ex-parte applicant was registered owner of the Land Mwea/Tebere/1331 now divided into plot 1780 and 1786. The Tribunal acted contrary to the provisions of Registered Land Act Cap 300.
I have perused the proceedings attached it is clear the claimant was raising issues of trust which are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The issue of deciding on ownership of land Registered under Registered Land Act is contrary to the rights of a proprietor conferred under the Act (Section 27 & 28). The jurisdiction of disputes on the registered land is in the High Court and the subordinate courts.
I therefore find that the tribunal acted without jurisdiction. I allow application and grant orders sought with costs to the exparte Applicant payable by the Tribunal. For the benefit of the interested Parties Rapheal and Judy Wangechi, I have to state that Judicial Review is not meant to look into private parties disputes. It is meant to check the powers of the statutory bodies so that they do not exceed their statutory power and therefore infringe on the rights of the citizens. Therefore the court looks into the manner the Tribunal has exercised its powers and if it is found to have acted without jurisdiction the Judicial Review is there to quash. My decision is supported by the authority cited by Mr. Ndena namely C.A decision in Appeal No. 157/2001 Maloba Wekhukuli & another Vs Francis W. Bilati.
Dated this 22nd January 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE