[2013] KEHC 5657 (KLR)
The court found that the Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate by entertaining and determining a dispute that involved the sale of land, allegations of fraud, and the nullification of title. These matters are not within the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal by Section 3(1) of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5657 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: The Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal; Applicant: Marko Liuva Mahindu; Respondent: Timona Ihaji
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 48 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review (certiorari)
- Outcome
- application allowed; decision of the Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal quashed
- Judges
- BT Jaden, SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Certiorari, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
The Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Marko Liuva Mahindu
Applicant
Timona Ihaji
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review (certiorari)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the dispute involving sale of land, fraud, and nullification of title.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision should be quashed by an order of certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate by entertaining and determining a dispute that involved the sale of land, allegations of fraud, and the nullification of title. These matters are not within the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal by Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, which limits the Tribunal's authority to disputes concerning the division of, or determination of boundaries to land, claims to occupy or work land, or trespass to land. As such, the Tribunal's decision was made without jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity. The court allowed the application for certiorari and quashed the Tribunal's decision.
Court Disposition
application allowed; decision of the Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal quashed
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the decision made by the Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal on 4/9/2010 in claim No. 16 of 2010.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARKO LIUVA MAHINDU FOR ORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE HAMISI DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO. 16 OF 2010 IN RESPECT OF LAND PARCEL NO. L.R. TIRIKI/BULUKHOBA/1497
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE HAMISI RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT MISC. CIVIL CASE NO. 18 OF 2010 – TIMONA IHAJI VERSUS MARKO LIUVA MAHINDU
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTERED LAND ACT CAP 300 LAWS OF KENYA AND THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT (NO. 18 OF 1990)
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC ………………………..….…………………………..………………….… APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE HAMISI DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ……...................………. RESPONDENT
EX-PARTE: MARKO LIUVA MAHINDU
R U L I N G
The Notice of Motion dated 24/12/2010 seeks an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court for the purposes of being quashed the decision made by Hamisi District Land Disputes Tribunal on 4/9/2010 in claim No. 16 of 2010 and filed in the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Hamisi as Misc. Civil Case No. 18 of 2010 – Timona Ihaji vs Marko Liuva Mahindu. The application is supported by the statutory statement and verifying affidavit by the ex-parte applicant, Marko Liuva Mahindu(hereinafter referred to as the applicant).
The grounds upon which the relief is sought is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in entertaining the dispute.
The application was opposed to by the Interested Party, Timona Ihaji. The Interested Party’s contention is that although the applicant is the registered owner of the land, she is the one in actual possession and occupation of the land and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
An analysis of the decision before the Tribunal reflects that it dealt with matters of sale of land, fraud and nullification of title to land.
The decision was outside the mandate of the Tribunal as provided for under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act which stipulates as follows:-
3. (1) Subject to this Act, all cases of civil nature involving a dispute as to-
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,
shall be heard and determined by a Tribunal established under section 4.
The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Consequently, the application is allowed. Each party to meet own costs.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Kakamega this 27thday of February 2013.
………………………………………
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE