[2013] KEHC 1880 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 1880 (KLR)

The court found that the Busia Municipal Land Dispute Tribunal acted within its statutory mandate under Section 3(1) of the Land Dispute Tribunal Act by determining the position of a six-metre wide access road as a boundary issue between the parties. The Tribunal did not order the cancellation of title to the land...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 1880 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Burumba 'C' Community; Respondent: Busia Chief Magistrate; Respondent: Busia Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: John Muiruri
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 27 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Boundaries, Certiorari, Prohibition
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Judicial Review Tribunal Jurisdiction Land Boundaries Certiorari Prohibition

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burumba 'C' Community

Applicant

Busia Chief Magistrate

Respondent

Busia Land Disputes Tribunal

Respondent

John Muiruri

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Busia Municipal Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the dispute concerning registered land parcels Bukhayo/Mundika/4175 and 4176.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's award exceeded its statutory mandate under the Land Dispute Tribunal Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal denied any party a fair hearing or failed to follow due process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Busia Municipal Land Dispute Tribunal acted within its statutory mandate under Section 3(1) of the Land Dispute Tribunal Act by determining the position of a six-metre wide access road as a boundary issue between the parties. The Tribunal did not order the cancellation of title to the land parcels in question, and there was no evidence that any party was denied a fair hearing or that due process was not followed. The applicant, having initiated the proceedings before the Tribunal, could not later challenge its jurisdiction on the basis of facts known at the time of filing. Accordingly, the application for certiorari and prohibition lacked merit and was dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Exparte Applicant's application dated 20th November, 2012 is dismissed with costs.