[2006] KEHC 2516 (KLR)
The court found that the Kilibwoni Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by making an award that affected the ownership and title of the suit land, which is a matter reserved for the civil courts. The Tribunal's decision, and its subsequent adoption by the Principal Magistrate's Court, were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2516 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman and Members of Kilibwoni Land Dispute Tribunal & 4 Others; Interested Party: Prisca Koros
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 186 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed in terms of prayers 1, 2, and 3; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- AI Tullu
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition Orders, Land Ownership Disputes, Jurisdiction of Tribunals
- 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
Chairman and Members of Kilibwoni Land Dispute Tribunal & 4 Others
Respondent
Prisca Koros
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kilibwoni Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine matters relating to ownership and title to land.
- 2 Whether the adoption of the Tribunal's award by the Principal Magistrate's Court was lawful.
- 3 Whether orders of certiorari and prohibition should issue to quash the Tribunal's and Magistrate's decisions and restrain further action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Kilibwoni Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by making an award that affected the ownership and title of the suit land, which is a matter reserved for the civil courts. The Tribunal's decision, and its subsequent adoption by the Principal Magistrate's Court, were therefore unlawful and void. The interested party's claim, being one of inheritance and title, ought to have been pursued through succession proceedings or civil litigation, not before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the court granted orders of certiorari to quash both the Tribunal's proceedings and the Magistrate's judgment and decree, and issued an order of prohibition restraining the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in terms of prayers 1, 2, and 3; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Order of certiorari issued to quash the proceedings and decision of the Kilibwoni Land Disputes Tribunal of 13th and 16th October, 1998.
- Order of certiorari issued to quash the judgment and decree of the Kapsabet Principal Magistrate's Court in Land Dispute No. 45 of 1998.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Misc Civ Appli 186 of 1999
REPUBLIC:............................................................................................................................APPLICANT
VERUS
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OFKILIBWSONI LAND DISPUTE
TRIBUNAL & 4 OTHERS ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
This application Under Order 53, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act seeks the following orders:-
1. An order of certiorari do issue to bring to this Honourable court and quash the proceedings of the Kilibwoni Land Disputes Tribunal of 13th October,1998 and to subsequent decision delivered on 16th October,1998 in the Tribunal’s Dispute No.22 of 1998 concerning and about all that piece of Land known as NANDI/KEBEN/72.
2. An order of certiorari do issue to this Honourable court and quash the Judgement of the Kapsabet Principal Magistrate’s court on 9th September,1999 and its subsequent decree issued on 4th October,1999 in Principal Magistrate Court Land Dispute No.45 of 1998.
3. An order of prohibition do issue prohibiting the Kapsabet Principal Magistrate or the Executive Officer of the Kapsabet Magistrate’s Court from signing for or on behalf of the applicant any documents effectuating the excision and transfer of ten (10) acres of land from the suit land in favour of Prisca Koros, the interested party herein, or in any way whatsoever giving effect to the decision of the Kilibiwoni Land Disputes Tribunal of 16th October,1998.
4. That costs of this application be provided for.
The Applicant is the a registered owner/proprietor of all that land known as Nandi/Keben/72, measuring about 10. 9 hectares. The interested party who is a sister to the Applicant lodged a claim to a portion of the land with the Kilibowni Land Disputes Tribunal. The interested party’s claimed that she was entitled to a portion of the land for her use and occupation since she was not married and the land belonged to her deceased father. She claimed that she was entitled to one half share of the land as their father left the Applicant and herself as the only heirs and beneficiaries to his Estate.
Upon hearing the disputes the Tribunal awarded 10 acres out of the said land to the interested party. She lodged the Award with the Principal Magistrate’s court at Kapsabet which adopted and entered it as its judgement on 9th September,1999.
The Applicant’s has one principal ground in challenging the said decisions, namely that the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it made its award. It was submitted that the effect was to interfere with the title to the land and impeachment thereof. The Applicant through counsel submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act to decide on matters of ownership and/or title to land.
Neither the Respondent nor the interested party attended the hearing of the application. I am satisfied that they were both served with the application and hearing notices.
Upon consideration of the application and submissions, I am satisfied that the Kilibowoni Land Disputes Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide on matters or questions of title to land. The interested party ought to have fitted her claim with the civil courts which have appropriate jurisdiction. She also should have considered investigating how her brother obtained title to the land and if it was through succession proceedings whether the court considered her rights as a beneficiary.
As a result, I do hereby allow application dated 25th November,1999 in terms of prayers 1,2 and 3. Prayers 4,5 and 6 are disallowed as the parties therein were not served with the applications and their inclusion totally unnecessary at this stage. Since this matter involves family dispute and the interested party may have gone to the Tribunal due to ignorance. I do hereby make no order as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 16th DAY OF MAY, 2006
M. K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE