[2014] KEHC 1455 (KLR)
The court held that the Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to adjudicate on the distribution of the estate of the late Kiptarus Arap Sitienei, a matter reserved for the Probate and Administration or Succession courts. The tribunal's jurisdiction under the Land Disputes...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1455 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal (Wafula Bibi, Henry Munda, Jacob Indiazi); Respondent: The Chief Magistrate's Court Kitale; Respondent: Shadrack Tarus & Others; Applicant: Kiprono Tarus
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 45 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Decision of the tribunal and its adoption as a judgment of the court quashed. Costs awarded to the ex-parte applicant against the third respondent.
- Judges
- J Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Succession and Administration of Estates, Certiorari, Locus Standi
- 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
Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal (Wafula Bibi, Henry Munda, Jacob Indiazi)
Respondent
The Chief Magistrate's Court Kitale
Respondent
Shadrack Tarus & Others
Respondent
Kiprono Tarus
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine matters relating to the distribution of the estate of a deceased person.
- 2 Whether the tribunal's decision and its adoption by the magistrate's court were ultra vires and liable to be quashed by certiorari.
- 3 Whether any party had locus standi to bring the dispute before the tribunal without a grant of letters of administration.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to adjudicate on the distribution of the estate of the late Kiptarus Arap Sitienei, a matter reserved for the Probate and Administration or Succession courts. The tribunal's jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act was confined to specific land-related disputes and did not extend to succession matters. Furthermore, none of the parties had obtained a grant of letters of administration, and therefore lacked the necessary locus standi to initiate or participate in proceedings concerning the estate. Consequently, the tribunal's decision and its adoption as a judgment by the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Decision of the tribunal and its adoption as a judgment of the court quashed. Costs awarded to the ex-parte applicant against the third respondent.
Orders
- The decision or award made by the Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal and confirmed or adopted as a judgment of the court is removed into this court and quashed.
- The ex-parte applicant shall have the costs of the application as against the third respondent only.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
MISC CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2009
REPUBLIC...................................................................APPLICANT
AND
1. KWANZA L.D.T COMPRISING OF:-
(a) WAFULA BIBI
(b) HENRY MUNDA..................................1ST RESPONDENTS
(c) JACOB INDIAZI
2. THE C.M'S COURT KITALE..................2ND RESPONDENT
3. SHADRACK TARUS & OTHERS........3RD RESPONDENT
EXPARTE.......................................................KIPRONO TARUS
R U L I N G
The ex-parte applicant vide a Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2009, seeks an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash the decision of the Kwanza Land Dispute Tribunal (first respondent) dated 27th January, 2009 and confirmed as a judgment of the court by the second respondent on the 3rd march, 2009.
The decision was the resultant of a dispute involving the third respondent and others against the ex-parte applicant. The dispute itself involved the sharing of portions of land belonging to the late Kiptarus Arap Sitienei, father to both the ex-parte applicant and the third respondent.
In effect, the tribunal distributed the portions of land among the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Arap Sitienei with an order that direct transfer of the portions to each of the beneficiaries be effected after succession.
The tribunal thus acknowledged that lawful succession respecting the estate of the deceased had not been done. However, the tribunal went ahead to forward its decision to the magistrate court for it to be adopted as a judgment of the court.
Matters of distribution of the estate of a deceased person fall under the jurisdiction of the Probate and Administration or Succession courts and not Land Disputes Tribunals whose jurisdiction was clearly defined under s. 3(1) of the now repealed Land Disputes Tribunals Act (Cap 303 A LOK) and was confined 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.
It would therefore follow that the tribunal herein exceeded its mandate by purporting to adjudicate on an issue relating to the distribution of the estate of a deceased person. In any event , none of the parties to the dispute had obtained the necessary grant of letters of administration for him or her to lodge a dispute with the tribunal on property belonging to the late Arap Sitienei. None of them had the necessary “Locus standi”.
In the upshot, this application is merited such that the objection thereto by the third respondent is hereby overruled for want of merit and substance.
Accordingly, the application is granted to the extent that the material decision or award made by the tribunal and confirmed or adopted as a judgment of the court be removed into this court and be quashed. The ex-parte applicant shall have the costs of the application as against the third respondent only.
Ordered accordingly.
J. R. KARANJA
JUDGE
[Read & signed this 26th day of November, 2014].