[2011] KEHC 2062 (KLR)
The court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory mandate by purporting to determine the rightful owner of registered land and by making orders regarding parcels that were the subject of succession proceedings in the High Court. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Land...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2062 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kirinyaga Central Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: SRM Court Kerugoya; Respondent: Charles Muriuki Githinji; Applicant: Priscilla Wanjiku
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 64 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Tribunals, Certiorari, Succession Disputes, Quashing of Tribunal Awards
- 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
Kirinyaga Central Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
SRM Court Kerugoya
Respondent
Charles Muriuki Githinji
Respondent
Priscilla Wanjiku
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine ownership of registered land parcels.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal could make orders regarding land subject to ongoing High Court succession proceedings.
- 3 Whether the adoption and enforcement of the Tribunal's award by the SRM Court was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory mandate by purporting to determine the rightful owner of registered land and by making orders regarding parcels that were the subject of succession proceedings in the High Court. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990, does not extend to questions of title or ownership of registered land, nor does it allow interference with matters properly before the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision, the subsequent adoption of its award, and the decree issued by the SRM Court were all nullities. The court issued an order of certiorari to quash these decisions and...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Order of certiorari issued quashing the decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal and the decree of the SRM Court Kerugoya.
- The SRM Court Kerugoya is prohibited from dealing with the dispute as filed by the Tribunal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 64 OF 2010
REPUBLIC…………………………….…………..……….APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIRINYAGA CENTRAL
LAND DISPUTES……………..….....……………..…1ST RESPONDENT
SRM COURTKERUGOYA………......………………2ND RESPONDENT
CHARLES MURIUKI GITHINJI…...........…………….3RD RESPONDENT
AND
PRISCILLA WANJIKU…………….........………….EXPARTE APPLICANT
R U L I N G
The exparte Applicant is the mother of the 3rd Respondent. Her husband (who was the father of the 3rd Respondent) was the deceased Henry Githinji Munyua who died in 2005. The exparteApplicant went to the 1st Respondent (the Tribunal) claiming land parcel MUTIRA/KAGUYU/1907 which is registered in the name of the 3rd Respondent. The Tribunal found that the parcel had been bought for the deceased from Faith Wambui Kinyanjui by the 3rd Respondent. It was registered in the name of the deceased who had subsequently gifted it to the 3rd Respondent.
I find that, in accepting to determine who between the exparteApplicant and the 3rd Respondent was the rightful owner of this registered land, the Tribunal went beyond its mandate which is contained in Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990 (WEPUKHULU, ASMAN MALOBA & ANOTHER VS FRANCIS WAKWABUBI BIKETI, Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2001 at Kisumu). The decision of the Tribunal was consequently a nullity.
They were three other parcels, MUTIRA/KAGUYU/1149, MUTIRA/KAGUYU/1045 and MUTIRA/KAGUYU/272, that the Tribunal made findings on. The parcels were in the names of the deceased and were the subject of proceedings in High Court Succession Case No. 92 of 2009 at Embu. The Tribunal purported to share out these parcels to the family of the deceased. That was illegal as it had no power over the parcels. It had no power to deal with a matter that the High Court was properly seized of.
The consequent adoption of the award of the Tribunal and the decree that was issued by the 2nd Respondent were both a nullity.
The motion is allowed. By order of Certiorari the decision of the Tribunal and the order and decree of the 2nd Respondent are all removed into this court and quashed. The 2nd Respondent is prohibited from dealing with the dispute as filed by the 1st Respondent.
I agree with Mr. Ngige for the 3rd Respondent that it was the exparte Applicant who initiated the complaint that led to these offending decisions and orders. She dragged the 3rd Respondent to the Tribunal, to the 2nd Respondent and to this court. She is condemned to pay the costs of this application.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY 2011.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE