[2006] KEHC 2478 (KLR)
The High Court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning registered land and ownership thereof. The applicant had complied with the procedural requirement of lodging a verified copy of the tribunal's decision. Since the tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate, its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2478 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Nandi Hills Division Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate, Kapsabet Law Courts; Interested Party: Ambrose Tororey Kiriongi; Interested Party: Gilbert Kiprono Kiriongi; Applicant: Ernest K. A. Kiriongi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 195 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs to the applicant against the first respondent.
- Judges
- AI Tullu
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Registered Land Disputes, Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition Orders
- 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 Nandi Hills Division Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Senior Resident Magistrate, Kapsabet Law Courts
Respondent
Ambrose Tororey Kiriongi
Interested Party
Gilbert Kiprono Kiriongi
Interested Party
Ernest K. A. Kiriongi
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with Order 53 Rule 7 by lodging a verified copy of the tribunal decision.
- 2 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on disputes involving registered land.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning registered land and ownership thereof. The applicant had complied with the procedural requirement of lodging a verified copy of the tribunal's decision. Since the tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate, its decision was a nullity. The court granted orders of certiorari to quash the tribunal's decision and prohibition to restrain the magistrate's court from enforcing the same. Costs were awarded to the applicant against the first respondent.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs to the applicant against the first respondent.
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the decision of the Nandi Hills Land Disputes Tribunal dated 16th May, 2005.
- An order of prohibition is issued prohibiting the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kapsabet from adopting or enforcing the tribunal's decision.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Misc Appli 195 of 2005
REPUBLIC:.......................................................................................................................APPLICANT
AND
THE CHAIRMAN NANDI HILLS DIVISION ....................................................1st RESPONDENT
LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
THE SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, ...................................................2ND RESPONDENT
KAPSABET LAW COURTS
AMBROSE TOROREY KIRIONGI.........................................................INTERESTED PARTIES
AND GILBERT KIPRONO KIRIONGI
(EX-PARTE ERNEST K. A. KIRIONGI)
JUDGEMENT
On the 16th May,2005 the Nandi Hills Division Land Disputes Tribunal delivered its decision and award in Land Dispute Tribunal Case No.127 between Ambrose Tororey Kiriongi and Gilbert Kiprono Kiriongi the interested parties herein on the one part and Ernest K.A. Kiriongi, the Ex parte Applicant on the other. The dispute was in respect of all that piece of land parcel Number NANDI/KEBEN/127 which at all materials times was registered in the name of the Ex parte Applicant. All the parties are brothers.
The Tribunal decided to divide the said property and award it as follows:-
1. Gilbert Kiprono Kiriongi - 8 Acres
2. Ernest Kiriongi - 13. 7 Acres.
Total 21. 7 Acres.
The Ex parte applicant was aggrieved by this decision and filed this application under the provisions of sections 8 and of the Law Reform Act and Order 53, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the following Orders:-
a) An order of certiorari be and is hereby issued to remove into the High Court and quash the decision of the Nandi Hills Land Disputes Tribunal dated 16th May,2005.
b) An order of prohibition be and is hereby issued prohibiting the Senior resident Magistrate’s court at Kapsabet from adopting or otherwise enforcing the decision of the Nandi Hills Division Land Disputes Tribunal dated 16th May,2005 lodged in Kapsabet Senior Magistrate’s Court Land Disputes. Award No. 14 of 2005.
After hearing the application for which leave had been obtained and after considering the submissions by counsel, I find that there are two issues for the determination of the court. These are:-
1. Whether the Applicant has complied with the provision of Rule 7 of Order 53 by lodging a copy of decision/order of the Tribunal by verified affidavit in court.
2. Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on a dispute touching on registered land.
The Applicant filed a verifying Affidavit sworn on 28th September,2005 together with the chamber summons dated 29th September,2005 for leave to file the application for judicial review orders. This affidavit is required to verify the facts relied upon. The applicant annexed a copy of the decision of the Tribunal to the said verifying Affidavit. It was marked as Exhibit No. “EKAK(3b)”.
In my view, the decision of the Tribunal has been produced in court as an exhibit and it has been verified by the verifying Affidavit sworn on 28th September,2005. Verification does not mean certification. I find that the copy of the decision has been sufficiently verified and the interested party does not state that it is not the correct document.
The property herein has at all material times been registered in the name of the Applicant. It still is. The effect f the decision is that the Tribunal would have adjudicated on a dispute touching on registered land and ownership thereof. This it cannot do. The Law on this issue is clear, that the Land Disputed Tribunals have no jurisdiction to decide on matters of title and ownership to land. The claim of the interested parties herein is based on a claim of trust. This can only be litigated in the civil courts with appropriate jurisdiction.
The end result is that this application must succeed and I do hereby grant prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion dated 11th October,2005. Costs of this application shall be paid by the 1st Respondent to the Ex parte Applicants. Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON 22ND MAY,2006.
M. K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE
Coram - Ibrahim, J
C/C - Chelanga
Mr. Keter holding brief for Mr. Gicheru for the Applicant.
No Appearance for the interested parties.
Ruling read in the presence.
M. K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE.