[2006] KEHC 2215 (KLR)
The court found that the Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in awarding registered land to the interested party, as such matters are outside the Tribunal's statutory mandate. The adoption of the Tribunal's award as a judgment of the Principal Magistrate's Court and the issuance of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2215 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Kipkemei Randich
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 296 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for certiorari granted; Tribunal decision and subordinate court decree quashed; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Registered Land Disputes, Judicial Review, Certiorari, Supervisory Jurisdiction
- 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 Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Kipkemei Randich
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to title and ownership of registered land.
- 2 Whether the decision of the Tribunal and the decree of the Principal Magistrate's Court should be quashed by certiorari.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in awarding registered land to the interested party, as such matters are outside the Tribunal's statutory mandate. The adoption of the Tribunal's award as a judgment of the Principal Magistrate's Court and the issuance of a decree were therefore nullities. The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to grant an order of certiorari, quashing both the Tribunal's decision and the decree. The court declined to award costs, noting that the applicant initiated the proceedings before the Tribunal and only sought judicial review after an adverse outcome.
Court Disposition
Application for certiorari granted; Tribunal decision and subordinate court decree quashed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion dated 9th December, 2005 is granted and the decision of the Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal dated 28th July, 2005 is quashed.
- The Decree of the Principal Magistrate’s Court in LDT No.35 of 2005 shall be held in abeyance and shall not be enforced.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Misc Civ Appli 296 of 2005
REPUBLIC:................................................................................................................................APPLICIANT
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN KAPSABET DIVISIONLAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL:..............RESPONDENT
KIPKEMEI RANDICH:............................................................................................INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGEMENT
This a judicial review application for an order of certiorari under the provisions of section 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Applicant has at all material times been the registered owner of land Parcel Number Nandi/Kamoiywa/249. A dispute arose between the Applicant and the interested party and the matter was referred to the Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal. After hearing the dispute the Tribunal on 28th July,2005 awarded the entire land comprised in the said title to the Interested party. The said award was adopted and entered as judgment of the Principal Magistrate’s court at Kapsabet in LDT No.35 of 2005. A decree was then issued on 31st October,2005.
The main ground in this application is that the decision of the Tribunal was ultra vires since it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a dispute touching on registered land. In his submissions, Counsel for the interested party conceded that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. However, he submitted that the Exparte Applicant was not entitled to costs as she is the one who lodged a claim with Tribunal and moved it in the first place. That she only came to this court after losing at the Tribunal.
The Applicant’s counsel, in reply, stated that the interested party was an active participant in the proceedings before the Tribunal where he filed, in effect, a counter-claim. That it was on the basis of the counterclaim that he was award the land in dispute.
I have considered the application and the submissions by counsel. It is common ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine questions or disputes relating to title and ownership of registered land. I agree with this position.
The interested party was entitled to defend the claim before the Tribunal and to make his own claims once he appeared there. It is the Applicant who initiated the litigation giving rise to these proceedings.
The result is that I do hereby grant prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion dated 9th December,2005 and quash the decision of the Kapsabet Division Land Disputes Tribunal dated 28th July,2005.
In exercise of this court’s inherent jurisdiction and supervisory powers over the subordinate court and to make the result of these proceedings effectual I do hereby order that the Decree of the Principal Magistrate’s court in LDT No.35 of 2005 shall be held in abeyance and shall not be enforced whatsoever. The interested party may institute his claim against the Exparte Applicant in the Civil court with appropriate jurisdiction.
There shall be no order as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY,2006.
M.K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE