[2019] KEELC 4776 (KLR)
The court found that the Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by purporting to determine issues of succession and land ownership, and by directing the revocation of a title deed and a confirmed grant of letters of administration. The Tribunal's statutory mandate under section 3(1) of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4776 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Angeline Mukhuto; Applicant: Christine Mugeni Ouma
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 20 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; order of certiorari granted; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- A Kaniaru
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Succession Disputes, Title Deed Revocation, 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
Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Angeline Mukhuto
Interested Party
Christine Mugeni Ouma
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to succession and ownership of land.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal acted ultra vires by revoking a title deed and purporting to revoke a confirmed grant of letters of administration.
- 3 Whether the Interested Party should have raised her claim in the High Court succession proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction by purporting to determine issues of succession and land ownership, and by directing the revocation of a title deed and a confirmed grant of letters of administration. The Tribunal's statutory mandate under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act is strictly limited to boundary disputes, trespass, and occupation of land, and does not extend to succession matters or the cancellation of title deeds. The Interested Party, having been aware of the succession proceedings, should have raised her grievances before the High Court, which is the competent forum for such matters. As the Tribunal's...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; order of certiorari granted; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the decision of the Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal over L.R. No. SAMIA/WAKHUNGU – ODIADO/196 and its adoption by the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Busia vide Land Case No. 70 of 2011 on 20th July 2011.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
IN BUSIA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEWNO. 20 OF 2011
REPUBLIC...............................................................................APPLICANT
= VERSUS =
FUNYULA LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL.....................RESPONDENT
AND
ANGELINE MUKHETO........................................INTERESTED PARTY
CHRISTINE MUGENI OUMA..........................EX PARTE APPLICANT
J U D G M E N T
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a judicial review matter instituted on 28th July 2011, by the Ex-parte Applicant – CHRISTINE MUGENI OUMA – challenging the decision of the Respondent, the - FUNYULA LAND DISUTES TRIBUNAL-that was made in favour of the Interested Party, -ANGELINE MUKHETO - on 11th November 2010 and adopted as an order of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Busia on 20th July 2011.
SYNOPSIS
2. The dispute presented to the Tribunal concerned Land Parcel No. SAMIA/WAKHUNGU – ODIADO/196 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). The Interested Party had approached the tribunal claiming that the ex-parte Applicant who is her daughter conducted succession proceedings pertaining to the suit property irregularly by excluding her. The tribunal came to the conclusion that succession proceedings had been unlawfully conducted leading to vesting the ownership of the suit property on the wrong next of kin. They then directed that the title deed of the suit property be revoked and freshly registered in the name of the interested party as the next of kin of her husband, the deceased original owner, Musumba Mukhuwa. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Ex-parte Applicant took issue with the Respondent for attempting to cancel a title deed. That is ultra-vires its powers, she argued, and it was also unlawful to purport to revoke a confirmed grant for letters of administration issued by the High Court.
3. The Ex-parte Applicant seeks the following orders:
a. THAT an order of Certiorari be issued to call to the High Court and quash the decision of the Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal over L. R NO. SAMIA/WAKHUNGU – ODIADO/196and adopted by the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Busia vide Land Case No. 70 of 2011 on 20th July 2011.
b. THAT costs of the Application be provided for.
4. The Respondent and Interested Party did not file any response to the motion despite being served with the same on various occasions nor did they attend Court on the hearing date. The Ex-Parte Applicant’s case is therefore uncontroverted. The Ex-parte Applicant filed her submissions dated 7th May 2018 on even date.
ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION
5. I have considered the Application herein, the Statement of facts, supporting documents and submissions. The Respondent’s mandate was set out in section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act that limits its powers to issues of boundary determination, trespass and claims on occupation of land. Without a doubt, I am convinced that the Respondent acted in excess of its jurisdiction. It had no powers to determine questions of succession proceedings or land ownership. The Interested Party was aware of the succession proceedings and should have ventilated her claim before the High Court.
6. Without much ado therefore, I allow this matter in terms of prayer (a). As regards costs, which is prayer (b), I realise that this is a sensitive case as the Interested Party and Ex-parte Applicant are closely related. By the Ex-parte Applicant’s own description, the Interested Party seems to be a rustic rural woman of humble means. I therefore order and direct that each side should bear its own costs. Parties are at liberty to go to a competent forum of their choice to handle their dispute.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 30th day of January, 2019.
A. K. KANIARU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
Ex-parte Applicant: Present
Respondent: Absent
Interested Party: Absent
Counsel of Ex-parte Applicant: Present
Counsel of Respondent: N/A
Courts Assistant: Nelson Odame