[2011] KEHC 1252 (KLR)
The court found that the Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by determining and confirming ownership of land and directing the issuance of a title deed. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990 restricts the Tribunal's mandate to matters of boundaries, occupation, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1252 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Chief Magistrate, Nakuru Law Courts; Applicant: George Mwangi Githendu; Interested Party: Peter Miruru Ng'ang'a
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 114 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted.
- Judges
- MJA Emukule
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Land Ownership Disputes, Certiorari, Prohibition 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
Republic
Applicant
Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Chief Magistrate, Nakuru Law Courts
Respondent
George Mwangi Githendu
Applicant
Peter Miruru Ng'ang'a
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine and confirm ownership of the disputed land parcel.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990.
- 3 Whether the orders of certiorari and prohibition should issue to quash the Tribunal's decision and restrain further action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by determining and confirming ownership of land and directing the issuance of a title deed. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990 restricts the Tribunal's mandate to matters of boundaries, occupation, and trespass, and does not extend to ownership or the issuance of title deeds. The Tribunal's orders were therefore ultra vires and void. Consequently, the court allowed the ex parte applicant's motion and granted orders of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's decision and prohibition to restrain further action based on that decision.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted.
Orders
- The decision of the Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal made on 8th September 2010 is quashed by an order of certiorari.
- An order of prohibition is issued restraining the respondents from acting on the Tribunal's decision.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 114 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE MWANGI GITHENDU
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY GEORGE MWANGI GITHENDU FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI & PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF NAKURU LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2010
REPUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
BAHATI LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL...........................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
CHIEF MAGISTRATE, NAKURU LAW COURTS..........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
EX-PARTE
GEORGE MWANGI GITHENDU.......................................................................................................SUBJECT
PETER MIRURU NG'ANG'A.........................................................................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
George Mwangi Githendu the ex parte applicant, seeks orders of certiorari to quash to the decision of the Nakuru Land Disputes Tribunal made on 8th September 2010 determining and confirming ownership of the parcel of land known as Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/4220 to Peter Miruru Nganga(the Interested Party) and an order of prohibition against the Respondent.
Although Mr. Kimatta who appeared for the Interested Party argued strongly that the decision of the Tribunal was within its mandate, it was quite clear from Mr. Githui, counsel for the ex parte Applicant's arguments, that the Tribunal had no such jurisdiction. If there was any doubt as to the nature of the Ruling, it was this -
"RULING
Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal after perusing all the documents availed by the two parties and oral questions we arrived at the following ruling: -
1. The claimant MR PETER MIRURU NG'ANG'A is the sole owner OF A PLOT excised from Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/4230 of which they named PHASE III.
2. The Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal requests the Hon. Court to compel the Chairman of KIUGU FIELD SCHOOL to issue Mr. PETER MIRURU NG'ANG'A a title deed to his plot in Phase II.
CONSTANCE W. NJOROGE - Chairman - Signed
DAVASON K. GICHUKI - Member - Signed
EVANSON KANGWANA - Member - Signed"
The mandate of Land Tribunals is stated, and restricted by Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990(No. 18 of 1990) to decisions on -
(a) determination on boundaries to land;
(b) claims to occupy land;
(c) trespass to land.
The Ruling clearly refers to ownership of land and even directs the court to issue a mandatory injunction against the Chairman of a school called KIUGU FIELD SCHOOL. The Bahati Lands Disputes Tribunal not only had no jurisdiction to make such orders, but also exercise powers which it did not have or are not vested in it.
For those reasons, I allow the ex parte Applicant's Notice of Motion dated and filed on 10th December, 2010 in terms of the three prayers.
There shall be orders accordingly.
Dated, delivered and signed at Nakuru this 1st day of July 2011
M. J. ANYARA EMUKULE
JUDGE