[2009] KEHC 990 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by making orders affecting the title to registered land, which is outside the scope of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The Tribunal's decision required the subdivision and transfer of registered land, a matter reserved for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 990 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kipindon Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kilgoris; Interested Party: Johnstone Langat; Interested Party: Samwel Langat; Ex Parte Applicant: Parseyo Ole Kitiapas
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 24 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Registered Land Title, Judicial Review Certiorari, Judicial Review Prohibition
- 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
Kipindon Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kilgoris
Respondent
Johnstone Langat
Interested Party
Samwel Langat
Interested Party
Parseyo Ole Kitiapas
Ex Parte Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the ex-parte applicant to relinquish part of his registered land to the interested parties.
- 2 Whether the alleged sale of land without Land Control Board consent was null and void.
- 3 Whether the proceedings and decision of the Tribunal related to matters outside its statutory mandate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by making orders affecting the title to registered land, which is outside the scope of section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The Tribunal's decision required the subdivision and transfer of registered land, a matter reserved for courts with appropriate jurisdiction. Furthermore, any purported sale of agricultural land without Land Control Board consent is null and void, and the Tribunal could not validate such a transaction. As such, the proceedings and decision of the Tribunal were ultra vires and liable to be quashed. The application for judicial review was allowed, and the orders of certiorari and...
Court Disposition
Application allowed with costs.
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the proceedings and decision of the Kipindon Land Disputes Tribunal.
- An order of prohibition is issued to prohibit the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kilgoris from adopting the Tribunal's award as judgment of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KISII
Misc Civil Appli 24 of 2004 (JR)
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY PARSEYO OLE KITIAPAS FOR ORDER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE NATURE OF (CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT, NO.18 OF 1990
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: KIPINDON LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT KILGORIS
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC .......................................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
KIPINDON LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL..............1ST RESPONDENT
THE SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT KILGORIS............................................................2ND RESPONDENT
AND
JOHNSTONE LANGAT..............................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
SAMWEL LANGAT ...................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
AND
PARSEYO OLE KITIAPAS.............................EX-PARTE APPLICANT
R U L I N G
This is an application for judicial Review brought by way of Notice of Motion under Order 53 rules 3,4,5 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act(Cap.26) for an order of Certiorari to remove into this court and quash the proceedings and decision of the Kirindon Land Disputes Tribunal (1 st respondent) and for order of Prohibition to prohibit the Senior Resident Magistrate (2nd respondent) from adopting the award as judgment of the court.
The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute. The exparte applicant is the registered proprietor of LR no.North Transmara/Kimintet“D”/616 which measures about 11. 28 Hectares. The Title Deed was issued under the Registered Land Act (Cap.300). The interested parties went to the 1 st respondent and claimed that they had bought land from the exparteapplicant :the 1st interested party a total of 6 acres and the 2nd interested party 6 acres. The
1st respondent heard the dispute and agreed with the claimants. It decided that each interested party gets his entitlement from the exparte applicant’s land. The Assistant chief Oloololo was asked to give the exparte applicant 6 aces in Ilookwaya, but that does not concern this court. The decision was filed with the 2 nd respondent for adoption as the judgment of the court.
The exparte applicant relying on section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, no 18 of 1990, contents that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to order him to relinquish any of his registered land to the interested parties. He contents, further, that the interested parties alleged purchase did not receive the blessings of the Land Control Board as required by section 6 of the Land Control Act and was therefore null and void. The Tribunal would not give life, as it were ,to such transactions. He was represented by Mr. Otieno. Mr. Jumba represented the interested parties. The 1st respondent was served but filed no papers to defend the allegation they acted without jurisdiction and is disobedience of the law. Regarding the issue of the consent for the Land Control Board, Mr. Jumba submitted the exparte applicant had not shown this was agricultural land or that the minister responsible had brought the area under the provisions of the Act. He submitted that what the 1 st respondent dealt with and decided fell under its powers, under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
The jurisdiction of the 1st respondent is circumscribed by section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. It can deal with all cases of civil nature relating to 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. The implementation of the decision of the 1 st respondent will entail the subdivision of the suit land into three parcels and opening of a register in respect of each subdivision and thereafter transfer of two of the subdivided portions to the interested parties, leaving the exparte applicant with one subdivision. It is clear that the proceedings and decision of the 1st respondent related to title to land. In my view, the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute or make the decision it did.(See Jotham Amunavi .V. The Chairman Sabatia Division Land Disputes Tribunal and Another, Civil Appeal No.256 Of 2002 At Kisumu).
This is sufficient to decide this application, which the court allows with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisii this 2nd day of November, 2009
A.O.MUCHELULE
JUDGE
2/11/2009
Before A.O.Muchelule-J
Court clerk-Mongare
Mr. Otieno-present
COURT: Ruling in open court.
A.O.MUCHELULE
JUDGE
2/11/2009