[2012] KEHC 1931 (KLR)
The court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the ex-parte Applicant and the Interested Party, as the matter concerned ownership of registered land, which falls outside the Tribunal's statutory mandate. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to matters involving...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1931 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Mt. Elgon Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: James Kikech; Applicant: David Mwencher Chongwony
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 33 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Tribunal and subordinate court proceedings quashed for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Land Ownership Disputes, Succession Without Grant
- 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 Mt. Elgon Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
James Kikech
Interested Party
David Mwencher Chongwony
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Mt. Elgon Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine ownership of registered land between two claimants.
- 2 Whether the proceedings and decision of the Tribunal and the subsequent judgment in Kimilili RMC land case no.29 of 2002 were nullities for want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the ex-parte Applicant and the Interested Party, as the matter concerned ownership of registered land, which falls outside the Tribunal's statutory mandate. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to matters involving division, boundary determination, occupation, or trespass to land, not ownership disputes. Consequently, both the Tribunal's proceedings and decision, as well as the subsequent judgment in Kimilili RMC land case no.29 of 2002, were nullities for want of jurisdiction and were quashed by order of certiorari.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Tribunal and subordinate court proceedings quashed for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The proceedings and decision of the Mt. Elgon Land Disputes Tribunal are removed into the High Court and quashed by order of certiorari.
- The proceedings and judgment of the court in Kimilili RMC land case no.29 of 2002 are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 33 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW OF REFORM ACT CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY DAVID MWENCHER CHONGWONY FOR ORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT NO.18 OF 1990
IN THE MATTER OF THE MT. ELGON LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL NO.20 OF 2002
AND
REPUBLIC....................................................................................................................APPLICANT
~VERSUS~
THE CHAIRMAN MT. ELGON LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL..............................RESPONDENT
JAMES KIKECH.............................................................................................INTERESTED PARTY
AND
DAVID MWENCHERCHONGWONY......................................................EX-PARTE APPLICANT
JUDGMENT
The ex-parte Applicant is the registered proprietor of land parcel no.Elgon/Chemoge/188 measuring 15. 5 Hactares. The Interested Party went to the Mt. Elgon Land Disputes Tribunal (Respondent) claiming that the registration was obtained by fraud as he is the lawful owner of the suit land having bought it from the deceased Joseph Kutukhulu in 1968. He stated that at the time the deceased was the registered owner. Subsequent to his death, his son transferred the suit land to the ex-parte Applicant. The son was not the administrator of the estate of the deceased and no succession proceedings had been filed to succeed him. The ex-parte Applicant told the Respondent that he had bought the suit land from the deceased in 1976. Following the deceased’s death all his sons gave him the suit land.
If the ex-parte Applicant somehow got himself as the registered proprietor of the suit land following the deceased’s death and without there being a succession cause, then the Interested Party, who alleged to have bought the suit land from the deceased in 1968, had a legitimate cause to complain. However, the place to lodge his complaint should have been the High Court and not the Respondent. This is because, under section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act no.18 of 1990 (now repealed) the Respondent did not have the power to determine a contest between the two parties each of whom claimed to own this registered suit land (Beatrice M’Marete v. Republic and Others, Civil Appeal no.259 of 2000 at Nyeri). The Respondent’s jurisdiction was limited to hearing and determining cases involving the division of, or the determination of boundaries to land including land held in common; a claim to occupy or work land; or trespass to land. This was a claim regarding who between the ex-parte Applicant and the Interested Party owned the suit land.
For want of jurisdiction, therefore, the proceedings and the decision of the Respondent were a nullity, and are removed into this court by order of Certiorari and quashed. Also a nullity were the proceedings and judgment of the court in Kimilili in RMC land case no.29 of 2002. They are also quashed. The Interested Party is ordered to pay the costs of this motion.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 17th day of September, 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE