[2017] KEELC 3532 (KLR)
The court held that the Kajiado Central Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in determining the acreage to be allocated to the applicant based on the interpretation of a land sale agreement. The Tribunal's statutory mandate under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act did not extend to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3532 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kajiado Central Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, Kajiado; Respondent: Leponyo Partorora; Applicant: Godfrey Nkeeru Nyaake
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 131 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Sale Agreements, Natural Justice
- 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
Kajiado Central Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, Kajiado
Respondent
Leponyo Partorora
Respondent
Godfrey Nkeeru Nyaake
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kajiado Central Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to interpret and determine disputes arising from a land sale agreement.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision to allocate only 5 out of 26 acres to the applicant was contrary to natural justice and the evidence adduced.
- 3 Whether the orders of the Tribunal and the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court should be quashed by certiorari and prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Kajiado Central Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in determining the acreage to be allocated to the applicant based on the interpretation of a land sale agreement. The Tribunal's statutory mandate under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act did not extend to interpreting contracts or determining disputes regarding the terms of a sale agreement or payment of the purchase price. Such matters are reserved for the courts. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision and the subsequent orders of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court were made without jurisdiction and are therefore null and void. The court allowed the application for judicial review,...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the proceedings, rulings, decisions and orders of the Kajiado Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court in Land Dispute Case No. 15 of 2012 and Kajiado Central Land Dispute Tribunal Case No. 697/07/2011.
- An order of prohibition is issued restraining the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, Kajiado from hearing, further hearing, determining, executing or otherwise dealing with Land Dispute Tribunal Case No. 15 of 2012.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
MISC. CIVIL CASE NO. 131 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNALS ACT, ACT NO. 18 OF 1990
AND THE REGISTERED LAND ACT, CAP 300 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
IN THE MATTER OF: KAJIADO CENTRAL LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 697/07/2011
IN THE MATTER OF: SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT KAJIADO LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL NO. 15 OF 2012
BY
REPUBLIC.....................................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE KAJIADO CENTRAL LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL............1ST RESPONDENT
THE SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, KAJIADO.....2ND RESPONDENT
AND
LEPONYO PARTORORA...............................................................INTERESTED PARTY
GODFREY NKEERU NYAAKE.........................................................................EX - PARTE
JUDGMENT
1. The Application before me is dated 10th July, 2012. In the Motion, the Ex-parte Applicant is seeking for the following orders:
a.An order of certiorari to remove unto this honourable court and quash the entire proceedings, rulings, decisions and orders of the Kajiado Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court made in Land Dispute Case No. 15 of 2012 Kajiado Central Land Dispute Tribunal made in Tribunals Case No. 697/07/2011.
b.An order of prohibition to prohibit the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court Kajiado from hearing, further hearing, determining, executing or in any other manner howsoever dealing with Land Dispute Tribunal Case No. 15 of 2012.
c.The costs of this Application.
2. In his Statement, the Ex-parte Applicant averred that by the 1st Respondent ordering that the Applicant should only get five (5) out of twenty six (26) acres of land he lawfully purchased, the 1st Respondent went against the doctrine of natural justice.
3. According to the Applicant, the 1st Respondent’s finding were contrary to the evidence adduced; that the 1st Respondent failed to appreciate that the agreement for sale between the Applicant and the Interested Party was binding and that the members of the Tribunal were biased against the Applicant.
4. Although the Respondents and the Interested Party were served with the Notice of Motion, they did not file a response. The Applicant’s counsel filed submissions and authorities which I have considered.
5. It is not in dispute that the Ex-parte Applicant entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Interested Party on 6th September, 1994. What was in dispute before the Tribunal was the acreage of land that the Applicant purchased from the Interested Party.
6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal made the following findings:
“2. That the Surveyor to enter into parcel No. KJD/Dalalekutuk/914 and excise 5 acres for Geofrey Nkeeru Nyaake and the remainder for Leponyo Partorora.
3. That the registrar to register the parcels as per No. 2 above.”
7. It is not clear from the proceedings how the Tribunal arrived at the above findings in view of the Agreements of Sale that were placed before it.
8. Without stating whether or not the Tribunal interpreted the agreements between the Applicant and the Interested Party correctly, I have to determine if indeed the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to deal with the issues that were before it.
9. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal was donated by the provisions of Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act which provided as follows:
“3(1) Subject to this Act, all cases of a civil nature involving a dispute to –
a.the division of, or the determination of boundaries to land, including land held in common;
b.a claim to occupy or work land; or
c.Trespass
shall be heard and determined by a Tribunal established under Section 4. ”
10. Considering that the issues that were before the Tribunal was whether the Agreement between the Applicant and the Interested Party was in respect of 26 acres or 20 acres and whether the full purchase price had been paid, those issues were outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
11. The Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction of interpreting the Agreements between the two parties and arriving at the conclusion that it did. Interpretation of Agreements is the preserve of the courts.
12. For those reasons, I find and hold that the Respondents acted without jurisdiction. I therefore allow the Notice of Motion dated 10th July, 2012 as prayed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 3RDDAY OF MARCH, 2017.
OSCAR A. ANGOTE
JUDGE