[2006] KEHC 1143 (KLR)
The court found that the Appeals Committee failed to provide reasons for its decision and did not demonstrate that both parties were given an opportunity to present their cases, as required by section 8(7) of Act 18 of 1990. Furthermore, the Committee acted beyond its jurisdiction by making a determination regarding...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1143 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Okoli Meya; Appellant: Loice Nyapunyi; Respondent: Jackson Okoli Tsimango; Respondent: Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 85 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; decision of Appeals Committee set aside
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Appeals Procedure, Title to Land, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Peter Okoli Meya
Appellant
Loice Nyapunyi
Appellant
Jackson Okoli Tsimango
Respondent
Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Appeals Committee followed the correct procedure as required by law.
- 2 Whether the Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine matters relating to title to land.
- 3 Whether the parties were given an opportunity to state their case as required by statute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Appeals Committee failed to provide reasons for its decision and did not demonstrate that both parties were given an opportunity to present their cases, as required by section 8(7) of Act 18 of 1990. Furthermore, the Committee acted beyond its jurisdiction by making a determination regarding title to land, which is expressly excluded from its mandate under section 3(1) of the same Act. These procedural and jurisdictional errors rendered the Appeals Committee's decision invalid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Appeals Committee was set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; decision of Appeals Committee set aside
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The decision of the Appeals Committee is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
Civil Appeal 85 of 2002
(Appeal from the decision of the Western Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee in case No.149 of 2001)
PETER OKOLI MEYA ………...................................................................……………. 1ST APPELLANT
LOICE NYAPUNYI …………...................................................................…………….. 2ND APPELLANT
V E R S U S
JACKSON OKOLI TSIMANGO ……........................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
WESTERN PROVINCIAL LAND DISPUTES APPEAL COMMITTEE ........… 2ND RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The two appellants, PETER OKOLI MEYA and LOICE NYAPUNYI were the claimants in case No.21 of 2000 in Butere District Land Disputes Tribunal while the 1st Respondent was the defendant. The record does not show the members of the tribunal who sat nor is a copy of the decision attached.
In the appeal No.149/01 filed in Kakamega Provincial Appeals Tribunal, three members sat and made a decision that Jackson Okoli Tsimango, the 1st Respondent herein, was the title holder (presumably of the land in dispute) and was “given the land on this basis.” The appeal before the Appeals Committee was allowed, hence this appeal. No where was the title to the land indicated.
The appellants, aggrieved by the decision of the Appeals Committee, challenged it in the 5 grounds of appeal, inter alia, on the premise that the Committee adopted a defective procedure and in not observing the law.
The Appeals Committee did not give reasons for its decision as required by section 8 (7) of Act 18 of 1990. It alluded to a report by elders on which it based its decision. But the report was not made part of the record. The names of the elders who compiled the report were not disclosed either.
Moreover, the record made by the Appeals Committee does not show that each party was given an opportunity to state his case as required by section 8 (7) of the said Act.
For these reasons, I find merit in the appeal. I allow it. The decision of the Appeals Committee is set aside for these reasons and also because the Appeals Committee appears to have acted beyond its jurisdiction by making a decision regarding title to land. If the decision of Butere Land Disputes Tribunal related to title to land, it too was ultra vires, section 3 (1) of Act 18 of 1990.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 19th day of October, 2006.
G. B. M. KARIUKI
JUDGE