[2012] KEHC 3238 (KLR)
The court found that both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Committee acted outside their statutory jurisdiction by making determinations on the ownership of land, which is not permitted under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Furthermore, the Appeals Committee was improperly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3238 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Lucas Shibakati; Respondent: Thomas Tsiluma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 45 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; decisions of both the Tribunal and Appeals Committee set aside; dispute to be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Composition of Tribunal, Setting Aside Null Decisions
- 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
Lucas Shibakati
Appellant
Thomas Tsiluma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee was properly constituted in accordance with the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal and Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine ownership of land under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
- 3 Whether the decisions of the Tribunal and Appeals Committee are nullities for want of jurisdiction and improper constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Committee acted outside their statutory jurisdiction by making determinations on the ownership of land, which is not permitted under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Furthermore, the Appeals Committee was improperly constituted, as it comprised more than the statutory number of members, rendering its decision a nullity. As a result, the decisions of both the Tribunal and the Appeals Committee were set aside. The dispute remains unresolved and must be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; decisions of both the Tribunal and Appeals Committee set aside; dispute to be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The decision of the Provincial Appeals Committee, Western Province, relating to land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/SHITOCHI/1646 is set aside.
- The decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal, Shinyalu, relating to land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/SHITOCHI/1646 is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL 45 OF 2010
(An appeal from the decision of the Provincial Land Dispute Appeals Committee,Western Province
in their Appeal No. 176 of 2006dated 16. 1.2007 but read on 24. 4.2007)
LUCAS SHIBAKATI......................................................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
THOMAS TSILUMA................................................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from the decision of the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Tribunal, Western Province dated 27. 4.07 in the said decision, the Provincial Appeals Committee ruled that Land Parcel No. KAKAMEGA/SHITOCHI/1646 belonged to THOMAS MULAMA (Respondent).
The Provincial Appeals Committee thus reversed the decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal, Shinyalu which had ruled that the proprietor of the said land was one LUKAS SHIBAKALI (Appellant).
The appeal is premised on the following grounds:-
“1. The Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee erred in law by failing to constitute itself properly by allowing a Chairperson, a Secretary and four (4) members to adjudicate upon the case instead of three (3) members only contrary to S. 9 (2) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990.
2. The Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee erred in law by revoking the decision of Shinyalu Land Disputes Tribunal.”
The Provincial Appeals Committee panel that heard the dispute was comprised of six members. The decision was signed by four members. This contravened Section 8 (5) and Section 9 (2) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
Arguments that the appeal can be referred to a properly constituted panel are not viable in view of the enactment of the new land law.
Both the Tribunal and the Appeals Committee made decisions on ownership of land. This was in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on them under Section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act which provides as follows:-
“Subject to this Act, all cases of a civil nature involving a dispute as to –
(a)The division of, or the determination of boundaies to land, including land held in common;
(b)A claim to occupy or work land; or
(c)Tresspass to land.
Shall be heard and determined by a Tribunal established under section 4. ”
The decision of both the Tribunal and the Appeals board are therefore a nullity.
The decision of the Provincial Appeals Committee, Western Province and the Land Disputes Tribunal, Shinyalu, relating to land parcel No. KAKAMEGA/SHITOCHI/1646 are both set aside.
The dispute between the parties remains unresolved. The dispute has to be taken to a court of competent jurisdiction. Each party to meet own costs.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 28th day of June, 2012
B. THURANIRA JADEN
J U D G E