[2006] KEHC 32 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by making an award affecting the ownership of registered land, specifically plot No. Mutira/Kirunda/1434. The tribunal's mandate under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act does not extend to matters of title, fraud, or forgery...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 32 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kerugoya Central Division Land Dispute Tribunal; Respondent: S.R.M. Kerugoya Court; Respondent: Geoffrey Muthii Murage; Applicant: Francis Maina Muriuki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 22 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari granted. No order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Registered Land, Title 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
Kerugoya Central Division Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
S.R.M. Kerugoya Court
Respondent
Geoffrey Muthii Murage
Respondent
Francis Maina Muriuki
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine matters relating to ownership of registered land.
- 2 Whether the tribunal acted ultra vires by arbitrating on issues of fraud, forgery, and title.
- 3 Whether the adoption of the tribunal's decision by the Resident Magistrate's Court was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by making an award affecting the ownership of registered land, specifically plot No. Mutira/Kirunda/1434. The tribunal's mandate under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act does not extend to matters of title, fraud, or forgery concerning registered land. The applicant was lawfully registered as proprietor following a court judgment, and no appeal or challenge was made to that registration. The Resident Magistrate's Court erred in adopting the tribunal's decision as a judgment. The court's supervisory role is to ensure that tribunals do not exceed their statutory jurisdiction. Accordingly, the orders of...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari granted. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The decision of the Kerugoya Central Division Land Dispute Tribunal is quashed.
- The decision of the Resident Magistrate's Court adopting the tribunal's award as a judgment is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
MISC CIV APPLI 22 OF 2006
REPUBLIC ………………….....................................……………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. KERUGOYA CENTRAL DIVISION LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL..1ST RESPONDENT
2. S.R.M. KERUGOYA COURT………...................................………2ND RESPONDENT
3. GEOFFREY MUTHII MURAGE….......................................………..3RD RESPONDENT
FRANCIS MAINA MURIUKI…………..........................................…..EXPARTE APPLICANT
RULING
Notice of Motion dated 28/3/2006 seeks orders of certiorari to quash tribunal decision and the decision of the Resident Magistrate adopting the decision as a court judgment. The reasons are contained in the statutory statement and the verifying affidavit with annexures. The grounds are that the Central Division Land Dispute Tribunal Kerugoya acted utravires in view of section 3 (1) and 13 (1) and (3) of Lands Disputes Tribunal Act 18 of 1990 by arbitrating on fraud, forgery and title. The tribunal interfered with illegally in that the award was to deprive the exparte applicant of his land Mutira/Kirunda/1434. The exparte applicant has exhibited the judgment of court under which he became owner and was subsequently registered as proprietor of the said land in case N. 297 of 1999.
From the affidavit of the interested party he denies the facts as given by the Expare Applicant. He says he agreed to sign some documents by force. What he is not able to explain is how the Ex parte Applicant became registered as proprietor without any resistance by way of appeal against the said registration. The proprietor is protected by the provisions of Registered Land Act. The jurisdiction is deed with registered land is in ordinary Civil Courts in the contrary.
By this application the duty of this court is to check excess of jurisdiction of tribunals established for certain purposes only and it is not equipped to deal with all matters which are death with by ordinary courts. Section 3 (1) sets out the matters the Tribunal may deal with. The dealing with ownership of registered land is not one of them.
I am satisfied by the argument of the Exparte Applicant that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in ordering the change in the ownership of plot No. Mutira/Kirunda/1434.
I allow this application and grant prayers sought. However I make no order as to costs.
Orders accordingly.
Dated this 23rd January 2006.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
23/1/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue – Court Clerk
Mr. Magee HB
3rd Respondent – present
Ruling read in open court in their presence.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE