[2012] KEHC 4748 (KLR)
The court found that the Roret Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to registered land, particularly where the land was registered in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal itself acknowledged the need for succession proceedings, indicating its lack of jurisdiction....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4748 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Applicant: Paul Kiplangat Chepkwony; Applicant: Jonah K. Chepkwony; Applicant: Obot Teckla Cherendet; Respondent: Chairman Roret Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Chief Magistrate’s Court Kericho; Interested Party: John Chepkwony
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 43 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Order of certiorari granted. Costs awarded to ex parte applicants.
- Judges
- JW Gacheche
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Registered Land Disputes, Certiorari, Ultra Vires Actions
- 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
Paul Kiplangat Chepkwony
Applicant
Jonah K. Chepkwony
Applicant
Obot Teckla Cherendet
Applicant
Chairman Roret Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Chief Magistrate’s Court Kericho
Respondent
John Chepkwony
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Roret Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate on disputes relating to registered land.
- 2 Whether the award of the Tribunal and its adoption by the Chief Magistrate’s Court was ultra vires and void ab initio.
- 3 Whether the proceedings and orders arising from the Tribunal’s award should be quashed by certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Roret Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to registered land, particularly where the land was registered in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal itself acknowledged the need for succession proceedings, indicating its lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal acted ultra vires by proceeding to hear and determine the matter. As a result, its proceedings and the subsequent adoption of its award by the Chief Magistrate’s Court were nullities ab initio. The court therefore granted an order of certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings and orders.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Order of certiorari granted. Costs awarded to ex parte applicants.
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued quashing the 2nd respondent’s order dated 23/9/2011 and all proceedings arising therefrom and connected with the 1st respondent’s award dated 24/3/2011 as adopted in Kericho Chief Magistrate’s Court Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2011.
- Respondents to bear the ex parte applicants' costs of the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
51 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:AN APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT (NO. 18 OF 1990)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT AND RULES
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:THE LAND KNOWN AS KERICHO/KABARTEGAN/211
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:THE RORET LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:THE KERICHO CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT MISC. APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2011
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC ……...........................….……………………………………………………….........APPLICANT
AND
THE CHAIRMAN RORET LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL..……............................………1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT KERICHO………………..........................……...2ND RESPONDENT
JOHN CHEPKWONY …………………………...........................….…………….....…..INTERESTED PARTY
EX PARTE:
PAUL KIPLANGAT CHEPKWONY
JONAH K. CHEPKWONY
OBOT TECKLA CHERENDET
JUDGMENT
According to Paul Kiplangat Chepkwonywho is one of the ex parte applicants in this cause, he is one of the sons of the late KIPKEMOI CHEPKWONY METO who was the registered proprietor of the properties known as KERICHO/KABARTEGAN/211and KERICHO/KABARTEGAN/ 349, which I shall now refer to as the suit properties;that JOHN CHEPKWONY (‘the interested party) filed a claim in the Roret Land Disputes Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), which tribunal on 24/3/2011, delivered its verdict, which was read and adopted as a judgment of the court in C .M C. Misc. App. No. (Kericho) 47 of 2011.
The other ex parte applicants areJONAH K. CHEPKWONYand OBOT TECKLA CHERENDET
Being aggrieved by the said verdict the three have now preferred this application in which they seek the following orders against THE CHAIRMAN RORET LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNALas the 1st respondent,THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT KERICHO as the 2nd respondent and the aforementioned JOHN CHEPKWONY:-
a.That this Honourable court may be pleased to issue an order of certiorari removing unto this Honourable court for purposes of being quashed forthwith the 2nd respondent’s order dated 23/9/2011 together with all the entire proceedings arising there from and or connected therewith pursuant to the 1st respondent’s award dated 24/3/ 2011 which was read and adopted as a judgment of the court in Kericho Chief Magistrate’s Court Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2011.
b.Costs of this application
The three rely on the grounds that:-
a.The Tribunal award is ultra vires as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a dispute relating to registered land.
b.That the award and its subsequent adoption as a judgment of the court is void ab initio.
c.That the award is incompetent and fatally defective.
d.That unless the orders herein are granted the impugned judgment respondent may be executed.
The order of certiorari, which the ex parte applicant urges this court to issue in his favour, will issue to quash a decision which is ultra vires, by bringing up into this court the decision of an inferior tribunal such as the Land Disputes Tribunal so that it may be investigated and if found wanting, it shall be quashed.
Needless to say the court is being called upon to investigate the decision making process, not the decision itself, and in applications of this nature, the issue of the jurisdiction of the said inferior body is paramount, for it is imperative and expected that such bodies act within their limits.
The ex parte applicants have established that their father, the late KIPKEMOI CHEPKWONY METO, was the registered proprietor of the suit properties and that being the case then, the Tribunal, had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to land which was already registered and which also belonged to a deceased person. Indeed the Tribunal seemed to appreciate those facts when it ordered that the parties do commence succession proceedings.
Not having head the relevant jurisdiction the tribunal acted ultra vires, when it proceeded to hear and determine the matter, it thus acted ultra vires, and its proceedings were thus a nullity and all further proceedings were a nullity ab initio.
I therefore allow this application in terms of prayer a.
The respondents shall bear the ex parte applicants costs of this cause.
Dated and delivered at Kericho this 27th day of March 2012.
JEANNE GACHECHE
Judge
Delivered in the presence of:-
For the ex parte applicants – Mr. Kiprono holding brief for Mr. Orina
For the respondents – No appearance
For the interested party - No appearance