[2008] KEHC 2185 (KLR)
The court found that the Embu District Land Disputes Tribunal acted ultra vires by making a decision outside the scope of its statutory jurisdiction as set out in Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The Tribunal's award did not pertain to subdivision, right to work, or trespass to land, and it unlawfully...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2185 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Embu District Land Dispute Tribunal; Respondent: Anisia Warue Nyaga; Respondent: Justin Njiru Nyaga; Respondent: John Munyi Nyaga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 23 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed; tribunal decision quashed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Disputes, Succession Rights
- 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 Embu District Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
Anisia Warue Nyaga
Respondent
Justin Njiru Nyaga
Respondent
John Munyi Nyaga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Embu District Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal could lawfully issue orders to the police to investigate criminal matters.
- 3 Whether children have a legal right to interfere with their father's assets during his lifetime.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Embu District Land Disputes Tribunal acted ultra vires by making a decision outside the scope of its statutory jurisdiction as set out in Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The Tribunal's award did not pertain to subdivision, right to work, or trespass to land, and it unlawfully directed the police to investigate criminal matters, which is beyond its mandate. Furthermore, the court held that there is no legal basis for children to interfere with their father's property during his lifetime; such rights only arise upon his death under the Law of Succession Act. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the application for certiorari was...
Court Disposition
application allowed; tribunal decision quashed
Orders
- The decision of the Embu District Land Disputes Tribunal is quashed.
- The Respondents and the Tribunal shall pay the costs of this application to the ex parte applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Misc. Appli. 23 of 2007.
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NYAGA RUBIRUTHI FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ORDER OF CERTIORARI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT NO. 18 OF 1990
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMBU DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL COMMITTEE
REPUBLIC………………………………………………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN EMBU DISTRICT LAND
DISPUTE TRIBUNAL……………………………………………..1ST RESPONDENT
ANISIA WARUE NYAGA………………………………………….2ND RESPONDENT
JUSTIN NJIRU NYAGA……………………………………………3RD RESPONDENT
JOHN MUNYI NYAGA……………………………………………...4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
The decision of the Tribunal is hereby quashed on ground that the decision forwarded to the subordinate court to be read was contrary to the provisions of laws and was without the jurisdiction granted to Tribunals under Section 3 (1) of Land Disputes Tribunals the issues arising are not regarding subdivision of land right to work on land, or trespass to land. The tribunal had no authority to issue orders directed to the police it investigate criminal issues. Again the award was unlawful. There is no law entitling the children to interfere with their father’s assets in his lifetime. They have to wait until he expires and then the provisions of Succession Act shall apply. The application is allowed orders granted as prayed the Respondents and the Tribunal shall pay the costs of this application to the ex parte applicant.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 21st April, 2008.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE