[2010] KEHC 1552 (KLR)
The court found that the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to determine ownership of registered land and ordering cancellation of a title deed, powers which are reserved for the High Court under the Registered Land Act. The Tribunal's decision was therefore ultra vires and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1552 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Wandai Gichovi; Applicant: Mary Gichovi; Respondent: Muriuki Wandai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 19 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Substantive Motion for Certiorari
- Outcome
- motion allowed; decision of Embu Land Disputes Tribunal quashed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Registered Land, Certiorari, Title Cancellation
- 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
Lucy Wandai Gichovi
Applicant
Mary Gichovi
Applicant
Muriuki Wandai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Substantive Motion for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to order cancellation of a registered land title and direct joint registration in the applicants' names.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision was ultra vires and liable to be quashed by certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to determine ownership of registered land and ordering cancellation of a title deed, powers which are reserved for the High Court under the Registered Land Act. The Tribunal's decision was therefore ultra vires and a nullity. The court held that the appropriate remedy was to grant an order of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's decision, notwithstanding procedural defects in the motion, in the interest of substantive justice.
Court Disposition
motion allowed; decision of Embu Land Disputes Tribunal quashed
Orders
- The decision of the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal dated 23rd July 2002 is removed into this court and quashed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
JUDICIAL REVIEW 19 OF 2009
LUCY WANDAI GICHOVI & ANOTHER……………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
MURIUKI WANDAI………………………….…………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Leave to file a motion for orders of certiorari was granted on1st December 2002, which is almost 8 years ago.There cannot be any justification for such a simple and straight forward matter to have dragged in court for that long.I note however that the matter was filed before the high Court in Nyeri, then transferred toNairobiand then to this court where it was received on 22. 06. 09.
The Applicant is seeking orders of certiorari to remove into this court for the purpose of quashing the order made by Embu Land Disputes Tribunal made on the 23rd day of July 2002 to the effect that Land Parcel No. NGANDORI/KIRIGI/3259 be cancelled from the Register and that the land be registered jointly in the names of LUCY WANDIRI GICHOVI and MARY GICHOVI.
The Applicant relies on one ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make such an order.There is a replying affidavit dated 10. 03. 03 sworn by one Mary Gichovi.According to paragraph 10 of her replying affidavit, she says that the ex-parte Applicant ought to have filed an Appeal with the Provincial Land Disputes Committee instead of coming to this court.She therefore asks that the motion be struck out with costs.Nowhere in the said replying affidavit has she denied that the Tribunal acted ultra vires its jurisdiction in entertaining the matter.
I heard both counsel in their oral submissions in court.I have considered their submissions and all the material placed before me.I must agree with Mr. Kibugi for the Respondent that this motion was very badly drafted.It refers to plaintiffs and defendant. Under normal circumstances, I would have struck it out but given the duration it has stayed in court, such an act would in my view amount to a travesty of justice.I will therefore close my eyes to the lack of form and aspire to deal with issues of substantive justice. I have considered the relevant provisions of the law in respect of such matters. Thelaw in this area is clearly spelt out.Under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal only with the following issues;
(a)The division of, or determination of boundaries to land, including land held in common
(b)A claim to occupy or work land ; or
(c) Trespass to land.
When you apply these provisions to the circumstances of this case, one does not need to go further than that to appreciate that the tribunal truly exceeded its jurisdiction.It purported to determine ownership of registered land.Such a jurisdiction is only vested in the courts by Section 159 of the Registered Land Act Cap 300 of the Laws of Kenya.Cancellation of Title Deeds is on the other hand also vested in the High Court pursuant to Section 143 of the Registered Land Act.By purporting to cancel the Title Deed in respect of the land parcel in question, the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction.Such excess calls for the quashing of the decision in question.
My finding therefore is that the Tribunal lacked Jurisdiction to determine the dispute in respect of the land in question.The orders it gave were therefore a nullity.The Respondents did certainly have a good claim but they should have ventilated it before a court with jurisdiction.
In the circumstances, this motion is allowed.The impugned decision is removed into this court and the same is hereby quashed.The parties herein are family and I therefore order that each party bears its own costs.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE
Delivered, dated and signed at Embu this 5th day of July 2010.
In presence of:- Mr. Utuku for Ex-parteApplicant and the interested parties in person.