[2019] KEELC 1943 (KLR)
The court found that the appeal could not be determined because the appellants failed to provide a complete record of the Tribunal's proceedings and did not include the judgment from the High Court in Judicial Review Application No. 53 of 2011. This omission constituted non-disclosure of material facts....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1943 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Philip Kamangu Gatiu; Appellant: James Karanja Ngonya; Respondent: Mary Wanjiku Wamutu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Thika
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 10 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Land Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal struck out with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote, LN Gacheru
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Appeals Procedure, Title Registration, Material Non Disclosure
- 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
Philip Kamangu Gatiu
Appellant
James Karanja Ngonya
Appellant
Mary Wanjiku Wamutu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Thika Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to order cancellation of registered titles.
- 2 Whether the appeal was properly before the court in light of incomplete tribunal proceedings and missing High Court judgment.
- 3 Whether the appellants' failure to disclose material facts warranted striking out the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appeal could not be determined because the appellants failed to provide a complete record of the Tribunal's proceedings and did not include the judgment from the High Court in Judicial Review Application No. 53 of 2011. This omission constituted non-disclosure of material facts. Additionally, the court noted that without the complete record, it could not ascertain whether the issues raised in the appeal were the same as those previously litigated. On the basis of this procedural deficiency alone, the court struck out the appeal with costs, without addressing the substantive jurisdictional arguments regarding the Land Disputes Tribunal's powers.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out with costs
Orders
- The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT THIKA
ELC. APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2018
PHILIP KAMANGU GATIU ..........................................1ST APPELANT
JAMES KARANJA NGONYA.....................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
MARY WANJIKU WAMUTU..........................................RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the decision of the Thika Land Disputes Tribunal made on 27th May, 2009 and adopted by the Thika Chief Magistrate’s Court on 22nd September, 2009 in Misc. Suit No. D.O 39 of 2009)
JUDGMENT
1. In the Memorandum of Appeal dated 24th August, 2015 and filed on 25th August, 2015, the Appellants have averred that they hold the Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of the late Hannah Wanjiku Mwangi, the proprietor of a parcel of land known as Ruiru/Mugutha Block 1/T 2735 (the suit land); that the 2nd Appellant is the proprietor of parcel of land known as Ruiru/Mugutha Block 1/T 2734 (the suit land) and that the Respondent filed a complaint at the Thika Division Land Disputes Tribunal claiming an interest in the suit properties.
2. It is the Appellants’ case that when the Thika Land Disputes Tribunal made a decision favourable to the Respondent, they filed an Appeal with the then Provincial Land Appeals Committee in Nyeri; that the Appeals Committee was abolished by operation of the law and that this court has jurisdiction to deal with the current Appeal.
3. The Appellants have averred that they purchased the suit properties from Eunice Njeri Ng’ang’a on 3rd August, 1998 and were issued with Title Deeds on 5th May, 2008; that having obtained Title Deeds, the Tribunal had no power, authority or right to order for the cancellation of the same and that the decision of the Tribunal wasultra vires, null and void. The Appellants have prayed for the annulment of the Award of the Tribunal which was made on 27th May, 2009 and adopted by the lower court on 22nd September, 2009.
4. The Appeal proceeded by way of written submissions. The Appellants’ advocate submitted that as at the time the Respondent filed his complaint at the Thika Division Land Disputes Tribunal claiming the suit properties, the suit properties had been registered in the names of the Appellants.
5. Counsel submitted that the Appellants lodged an Appeal after the Tribunal made a decision in favour of the Respondent; that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and that the Tribunal erred by acting beyond its jurisdiction. Counsel relied on numerous authorities which I have considered.
6. The Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Appellants were required to file an Appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of the Award; that there is no evidence to show that the Appeal was filed with the Provincial Appeals Committee within thirty (30) days and that the complaint that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction should be raised by way of Judicial Review.
7. The record shows that the Respondent herein filed Case No. TKA/LDT/41/2008 at Thika Land Disputes Tribunal. According to the proceedings of the Tribunal, the Respondent claimed that she had purchased parcels of land known as Ruiru/Mugutha Block 1/T. 2734 and 2735 from Rurii one Four Self Help Group.
8. I have perused the entire Record of Appeal. I have not seen the Award that was made by the Tribunal. Indeed, the proceedings of the Thika Land Disputes Tribunal which are the basis of this Appeal, are not complete. To the extent that the proceedings of the Tribunal are incomplete, this court is unable to determine the Appeal.
9. Other than the incomplete proceedings of the Tribunal, it would appear that the Appellant challenged the decision of the Tribunal in the High Court vide Judicial Review Application No. 53 of 2011, which was dismissed. This information is contained in the Ruling of the lower court dated 10th September 2013.
10. The Appellants have not included the Judgment of the High Court in Judicial Review Application No. 53 of 2011. This court is therefore unable to know if the issues raised in this Appeal are the same issues that were raised by the Appellants in Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2011.
11. The failure by the Appellants to file a complete set of the proceedings of the Tribunal and the Judgment of the High Court amounts to non-disclosure of material facts by the Appellants. On that ground alone, I strike out the Appellants’ Appeal with costs.
DATED AND SIGNEDATMACHAKOSTHIS12THDAY OFJUNE, 2019.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE
DATED, DELIVEREDANDSIGNEDATTHIKATHIS28TH DAY OFJUNE, 2019.
L. GACHERU
JUDGE