[2010] KEHC 1184 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence the ex parte applicant was served with the statement of claim or given adequate notice of the proceedings before the Makuyu Land Disputes Tribunal. This failure to serve and notify the applicant constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice, which require that a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1184 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Lands Disputes Tribunal Makuyu; Respondent: Githima Settlement Scheme; Respondent: Joseph Muli Mutiso; Respondent: Francis Wanjohi Macharia; Respondent: Joseph Mutunga Kivunzya; Respondent: John Gichuhi; Respondent: Michael Muiruri; Interested Party: Davis Nyamu Njoka; Interested Party: Lukas Musembi Thenge; Interested Party: Stephen Wambua Musyoia; Interested Party: Nyolo Kiilu; Interested Party: Mavuno Halisi Ltd; Interested Party: Matamu Holdings
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 70 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari and Prohibition
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; prohibition granted; costs to applicant.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Service of Process, Land Disputes Tribunal 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 Lands Disputes Tribunal Makuyu
Respondent
Githima Settlement Scheme
Respondent
Joseph Muli Mutiso
Respondent
Francis Wanjohi Macharia
Respondent
Joseph Mutunga Kivunzya
Respondent
John Gichuhi
Respondent
Michael Muiruri
Respondent
Davis Nyamu Njoka
Interested Party
Lukas Musembi Thenge
Interested Party
Stephen Wambua Musyoia
Interested Party
Nyolo Kiilu
Interested Party
Mavuno Halisi Ltd
Interested Party
Matamu Holdings
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari and Prohibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte applicant was denied natural justice by not being served with the statement of claim before the Land Disputes Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
- 3 Whether the proceedings before the Tribunal should be quashed or prohibited for want of service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence the ex parte applicant was served with the statement of claim or given adequate notice of the proceedings before the Makuyu Land Disputes Tribunal. This failure to serve and notify the applicant constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice, which require that a party be informed of the case they are to meet. The absence of such service was sufficient to vitiate the Tribunal's proceedings, regardless of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter. Consequently, the court granted an order prohibiting the Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing until proper service of the statement of claim was effected on the ex parte...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; prohibition granted; costs to applicant.
Orders
- The Tribunal is prohibited from proceeding with the hearing until the statement of claim is served upon the ex parte applicant.
- The ex parte applicant shall have the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
47 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Judicial Review 70 of 2009
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY DAVID JOHN MUNYAE
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL MAKUYU LAND CASE NO.48 OF 2008
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………..………………..APPLICANT
AND
1. THE CHAIRMAN LANDS DISPUTES )
TRIBUNAL MAKUYU )
2. GITHIMA SETTLEMENT SCHEME )
3. JOSEPH MULI MUTISO )
4. FRANCIS WANJOHI MACHARIA )
5. JOSEPH MUTUNGA KIVUNZYA )
6. JOHN GICHUHI )
7. MICHAEL MUIRURI )………….RESPONDENTS
AND
1. DAVIS NYAMU NJOKA )
2. LUKAS MUSEMBI THENGE )
3. STEPHEN WAMBUA MUSYOIA )
4. NYOLO KIILU )
5. MAVUNO HALISI LTD )
6. MATAMU HOLDINGS )……..INTERESTED PARTIES
RULING
By a Notice of Motion under Order LIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules the Ex parte Applicant moved the court for an order of certiorari to issue to remove to this court for purposes of being quashed the proceedings before Makuyu Land Disputes Tribunal case No.48 of 2008 and also an order of prohibition directed to the respondents to prohibit the conducting of other proceedings, issuing and or reading any award in the said case.
There is annexed to the Motion a verifying affidavit and a statement signed by the ex parte applicant. The basic complaint of the ex parte applicant is that he was never served with any statement of claim and only came to learn of this matter when he was served with a hearing notice.
There are also some complaints that the tribunal is bent on hearing the matter despite the fact that the same falls under the Registered Land Act and in particular ownership thereof.
Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No.18 of 1990 provides;
1. Subject to this Act all cases of civil nature involving a dispute as to;
a. The division of, or the determination of the boundaries to land, including land held in common;
b.A claim to occupy or work land; or
c.Trespass to land, shall be heard and determined by a tribunal established under Section 4
Section 3(2)(3)(4) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No.18 of 1990 provides as follows;
(2).Every dispute referred to in subsection(1) shall be instituted by presenting a claim to the Tribunal for the area in which the land is situated, and shall contain, and contain only, a summary of the material facts on which the claimant intends to rely.
(3).Every claim shall be registered in register of claims to be kept by the Tribunal in the prescribed manner and the claims shall be numbered consecutively in each year according to the order of their institution.
(4).Every claim shall be served on the other party, or, where there are more than one or each of the other parties to the dispute and the provisions of Civil Procedure Act as regards service of summons shall thereafter apply.
There is no evidence to show that the Ex parte Applicant herein was served with the statement of claim or that he was accorded adequate notice of the intended proceedings before the tribunal. Even without going to the other complaints that he has raised, it is a requirement of the rules of natural justice that a party knows the case that he is going to face.
It is not easy to conclude that the intended proceedings were going to touch on registered land because the material before me only refer to Githima Settlement Scheme and there is no title related thereto. There is also no evidence that the dispute presented before the Tribunal was within the provisions of Section 3(1) aforesaid or otherwise in which case, I would be in a position to address the issue of registered land.
That notwithstanding, the absence of notice alone and evidence of service upon the Ex parte Applicant was enough to vitiate the said proceedings. To that extent, the Ex parte Applicant succeeds in prohibiting the Tribunal from proceeding with the said hearing. That is not to say that the Tribunal shall not deliberate on the dispute.
I order that the statement of claim shall now be served upon the Ex Parte applicant who may then raise whatever objections that he has before the said Tribunal.
He shall however have the costs of this application.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 24th day of September, 2010.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE