[2010] KEHC 318 (KLR)
The court found that the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in making an award concerning land registered under the Registered Land Act. The tribunal's powers under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act do not extend to determining ownership or title of registered land or adjudicating on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 318 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Embu Land Disputes Tribunal & 4 Others; Interested Party: Daniel Anthony Kingori Kiiru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 6 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for certiorari granted; tribunal award quashed.
- Judges
- J Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Registered Land Act, Quashing of Tribunal Awards, Fraud in Land Transfer
- 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
Embu Land Disputes Tribunal & 4 Others
Respondent
Daniel Anthony Kingori Kiiru
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine ownership of registered land under the Registered Land Act.
- 2 Whether the tribunal could make adverse orders against a non-party to the proceedings.
- 3 Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine issues of fraud in land transfer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in making an award concerning land registered under the Registered Land Act. The tribunal's powers under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act do not extend to determining ownership or title of registered land or adjudicating on matters of fraud. Furthermore, the tribunal made adverse orders against a person who was not a party to the proceedings, which is procedurally improper. As a result, the tribunal's award was declared null and void ab initio and was quashed by the court.
Court Disposition
Application for certiorari granted; tribunal award quashed.
Orders
- The award of the Embu Land Disputes Tribunal dated 16.4.09 and adopted as judgment on 16.9.09 is removed to the High Court and quashed.
- Each party to bear its own costs of the proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 6 OF 2010
REPUBLIC................................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EMBU LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL& 4 OTHERS..........................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This ex-parte Applicant has moved this court for orders of certiorari to remove into this court for the purpose of quashing the decision made by the Embu District Lands Disputes Tribunal on 16. 4.09 and adopted as the judgment of the court on 16. 9.09 awarding the interested party land parcel No. GATURI/WERU/440 and adjournment costs of KShs.1,580.
He is also seeking for costs of the Application. He is relying on the verifying Affidavit and statement of particulars. The main ground relied upon is that the Tribunal interfered with the rights of a registered owner of land under the Registered Land Act and it had no jurisdiction to do so.
The exparte applicant has also annexed a copy of the extract of the register in respect of parcel No. GATURI/WERU/440 which was the subject of the said award. The register clearly shows that the land in question belongs to one DANIEL ANTHONY KINGORI KIIRU. The said Daniel Anthony Kingori was not a party of the proceeding before the tribunal yet adverse orders were made against him which practically divest him on the said absolute ownership.
I have studied the documents herein and the law application. The respondent has filled a long Replying Affidavit of 19 paragraphs. He claims that the land was transferred by fraudulent means and maintains that the same belongs to him. I have considered the contents of his Replying Affidavit along with the other documents herein.
Clearly, the award was made without jurisdiction. The land which was the subject matter of the tribunal proceedings is registered under the R.L.A. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any claims pertaining to the ownership of the same. That jurisdiction is not envisaged under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990.
I would also add that the tribunal has no power to deal with issues of fraud. Those 2 areas raise issues which are exclusively within the domain of conventional courts.
This is not to say that the interested party had no claim. He may have had a justiciable claim but he proceeded to the wrong forum. He should have filed his claim before a court of law which is vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine such a claim.
The award of the tribunal was therefore made without jurisdiction. The same is null and void ab initio. I declare it so and order that the same be and is hereby removed onto this court and it is hereby quashed.
I nonetheless order that each party bears its own costs of the entire proceedings.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE
Delivered, signed and dated at Embu this 22nd day of November 2010
In presence of:- Fatuma for Applicants, interested party present.