[2013] KEHC 2913 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 2913 (KLR)

The court found that both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Central Provincial Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, as it concerned land that had already been distributed through a succession cause and a grant had been issued by a competent court. The Tribunal and Appeals Committee were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 2913 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Rahab Njeri Njuguna; Respondent: James Karanja Muchinju
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 70 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decisions of the Tribunal and Appeals Committee quashed and set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Succession Disputes, Appeals on Point of Law
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal Succession Disputes Appeals on Point of Law

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahab Njeri Njuguna

Appellant

James Karanja Muchinju

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal and Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to determine a dispute involving land that had already been subject to a succession cause and grant.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal and Appeals Committee erred in law by entertaining a matter that was essentially a succession dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the proper procedure for challenging a grant issued in a succession cause was followed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Central Provincial Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, as it concerned land that had already been distributed through a succession cause and a grant had been issued by a competent court. The Tribunal and Appeals Committee were not empowered to revoke or alter grants issued under the Law of Succession Act. The proper forum for challenging such a grant was the High Court through revocation proceedings. Consequently, the decisions of both the Tribunal and the Appeals Committee were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decisions of the Tribunal and Appeals Committee quashed and set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The decision of the Appeals Committee is quashed and set aside.
  • The decision of the Kiambu Land Disputes Tribunal in case LND/16/20/6/2005 is set aside.