[2007] KEHC 136 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in requiring the applicant to give ½ acre of her registered land to the claimant. The Tribunal's mandate under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act does not extend to matters of title or ownership of registered land under Cap. 300....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 136 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Margaret Wakera Mureria; Respondent: Land Disputes Tribunal Central Division; Interested Party: Eunice Wakera Kambo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 53 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Registered Land, Land Title, Succession, Quashing Orders
- 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 Wakera Mureria
Applicant
Land Disputes Tribunal Central Division
Respondent
Eunice Wakera Kambo
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters concerning registered land under Cap. 300.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision to require the applicant to give ½ acre of her registered land to the claimant was lawful.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal's actions amounted to an interference with registered title.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in requiring the applicant to give ½ acre of her registered land to the claimant. The Tribunal's mandate under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act does not extend to matters of title or ownership of registered land under Cap. 300. The applicant's title was acquired through succession and was not in dispute. The Tribunal's decision amounted to an unlawful interference with a registered title, contrary to the law and established precedent. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal for Central Division Kirinyaga dated 27/4/2006 is quashed.
- Orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 2/6/2006 are granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Misc Civ Appli 53 of 2006
MARGARET WAKERA MURERIA………………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CENTRAL……………………..RESPONDENT
DIVISION
EUNICE WAKERA KAMBO………………………...…..INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
Notice of Motion dated 2/6/2006 seeks to quash the decision of the Lands Disputes Tribunal for Central Division Kirinyaga dated 27/4/2006 on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters of Registered Land under Cap. 300 and that the Tribunal made error of fact and law. The verifying affidavit shows that the Exparte applicant is the owner of parcel No. Inoi/Mbeti/337 absolutely free from incumbrances. The proceedings show that the ex-parte applicant was registered as proprietor upon succession proceedings. On hearing date only interested party appeared the Chairman of the Tribunal did not appear and was not represented. The interested party said she wanted to think about the matter but she had no money and was a disabled person. However she submitted that orders should not be granted. The court is of the view that judicial Review is against the exercise of Tribunals powers under the statute establishing the same therefore when the court is considering the matter although it has to consider the interests of Interested party, orders shall be granted if the Tribunal did not act within its powers. In this case the land in dispute was registered in the name of the Exparte Applicant as a gift from her mother. There is no dispute that the mother had a right to transfer the land to the Exparte Applicant. The Counsel for Applicant relies on the decision of the court of Appeal in the Appeal No. 157/2001 Wepukhimbi and Another vs Francis W. Biket where the court found that Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to interfere with Registered land and ownership thereof and therefore the award and the Resident Magistrate order adopting the same award as judgment were correctly quashed. Counsel has also referred to the Land Disputes Tribunal Act 18 of 1990 where section 3 (1) sets out the limits of the land Disputes Tribunal.
Disputes Tribunal.
I therefore find that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in requiring the court to order objector (Applicant) to give the claimant ½ acre out of Applicant’ s registered land. This would have been an interference of a registered title.
I therefore allow the application and grant orders sought.
Dated this 13th March, 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
13/3/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue - Clerk
Mr. Njagi present.
Ruling read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE