[2018] KEELRC 1607 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction to determine the issue of land ownership, as their statutory mandate under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act is limited to disputes concerning boundaries, occupation, or trespass, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1607 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Margaret Kaubuteni; Respondent: George Kiruki Mwambia; Respondent: M’Muketha M’Mungania (substituted by Evangeline Kananu Muketha)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 40 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Land Ownership Disputes, Appeals on Points of Law
- 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
Margaret Kaubuteni
Appellant
George Kiruki Mwambia
Respondent
M’Muketha M’Mungania (substituted by Evangeline Kananu Muketha)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine the matter at the appeals committee.
- 2 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal and Appeals Committee exceeded their statutory jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction to determine the issue of land ownership, as their statutory mandate under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act is limited to disputes concerning boundaries, occupation, or trespass, and does not extend to ownership. The matter before the tribunals was essentially about ownership, despite being framed as trespass. Since jurisdiction is conferred strictly by statute and cannot be assumed or conferred by the parties or the tribunal itself, any decision made outside the statutory jurisdiction is null and void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this ground...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The respondents are condemned to pay costs of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC APPEAL NO 40 OF 2009
MARGARET KAUBUTENI..................................APPELLANT
VS
GEORGE KIRUKI MWAMBIA................1ST RESPONDENT
M’MUKETHA M’MUNGANIA................2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises from decision of the Eastern Province Land Disputes Appeals Committee in their Appeal in Eastern Provincial Land Dispute Tribunal Appeal (PLDTA) No 61 of 2005 read to the parties by the Court on 30/3/2009.
2. The award/decision of the Provincial Land Tribunal Disputes was as follow;
“That the appeal is dismissed. This tribunal concurs with the Meru Central LDT award.”.
3. Aggrieved by the said decision the Appellant filed a memorandum of appeal and set out the following grounds;
a) The Eastern Land Disputes Appeals Committee erred on a point of law in not allowing the Appeal before it as both the Tribunal and the Appeals Committee had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of ownership of Land.
b) The Eastern Land Disputes Appeals Committee erred on a point of Law in that it refused to allow the Appeal although it was clear that the Respondent’s claim was time-barred.
c) The decision of the Land Disputes Appeals Committee is bad in Law as the same is against the provisions of the Land Disputes Tribunal’s Act.
d) The Eastern Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee erred in Law in not finding that the decision of the Tribunal was in excess of its jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
4. On 26/2/18 the 2nd Respondent, was substituted by Evangeline Kananu Muketha as the legal representative of the 2nd Respondent who is deceased.
5. On 12/3/18 the parties agreed to canvas the appeal by way of written submissions. The Court directed them to file the submissions by 30/4/18.
6. This is a second appeal and pursuant to section 8 of Land Dispute Tribunal Act my role is to determine the appeal on matters of law only.
7. Having evaluated the LDT proceedings, the decision made therein at the Meru Central LDT and Eastern Province Appeals Committee, the submissions submitted by the parties, the following are the issues for determination;-
A. Whether the Provincial LDT appeals had jurisdiction to determine the matter at the appeals committee.
B. Costs.
8. Jurisdiction of a Court or a tribunal flows from the constitution and/or legislation. It cannot be conferred by a party nor can a Court or tribunal confer jurisdiction upon itself.
9. According to Section 3(1) (b) of the LDT the tribunal had powers to deal with the following ;
“3. (1) Subject to this Act, all cases of a civil nature involving a
dispute as to—
(a) the division of, or the determination of boundaries to land,
including land held in common;
(b) a claim to occupy or work land; or
(c) trespass to land;”
10. The issue for determination at the LDT was actually ownership but couched like a trespass which it is not. In view of the provisions of the Act aforesaid the LDT did not possess jurisdiction to deal with the issue of ownership. Likewise, the Appeals Committee also did not have jurisdiction to so determine the matter.
11. In view of the above finding it would be unnecessary to determine the other issues raised in the Memorandum of Appeal.
12. In the end the appeal is allowed and the Respondents are condemned to pay costs of the appeal.
Orders accordingly
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MERU THIS 28TH JUNE, 2018.
J G KEMEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
C/A Mutua
Muchiri for Appellant
Kimathi Kihara for 1st and 2nd Respondents