[2013] KEHC 745 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal, Githurai, acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by entertaining a dispute concerning the ownership of registered land, which is not within the scope of matters provided for under Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990. The Tribunal's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 745 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Land Dispute Tribunal, Githurai; Respondent: Chief Magistrate’s Court, Thika; Respondent: Francis Mwangi; Respondent: Stephen Kibe; Applicant: Charles John Muraguri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 301 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. No order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Land Ownership Disputes, Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition Orders
- 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
Land Dispute Tribunal, Githurai
Respondent
Chief Magistrate’s Court, Thika
Respondent
Francis Mwangi
Respondent
Stephen Kibe
Respondent
Charles John Muraguri
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal, Githurai had jurisdiction to determine disputes involving ownership of registered land.
- 2 Whether the proceedings and award of the Tribunal should be quashed by certiorari.
- 3 Whether the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Thika should be prohibited from enforcing the Tribunal's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal, Githurai, acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by entertaining a dispute concerning the ownership of registered land, which is not within the scope of matters provided for under Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to division, boundaries, occupation, or trespass to land, and did not extend to ownership disputes. As such, the proceedings and award of the Tribunal were null and void for want of jurisdiction. The court therefore quashed the Tribunal's proceedings and award by certiorari and issued an order of prohibition restraining the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Thika, from...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The proceedings and award of the Land Disputes Tribunal, Githurai in case No. Ref Rur/LDT/03/2011 are quashed.
- An order of prohibition is issued restraining the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Thika from enforcing the decision of the Tribunal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JR CASE NO. 301 OF 2011
REPUBLIC ..................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL, GITHURAI ..............1ST RESPONDENT
CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT, THIKA ..............2ND RESPONDENT
FRANCIS MWANGI...................................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
STEPHEN KIBE ........................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
EX-PARTE
CHARLES JOHN MURAGURI
JUDGEMENT
Charles John Muraguri, the ex-parte Applicant (the Applicant) has through the notice of motion dated 7th December, 2011 and amended on 6th April, 2012 sought an order of certiorari to bring up into this court and quash the Award and proceedings of the Land Disputes Tribunal at Githurai in case No. Ref Rur/LDT/03/2011 and registered as Chief Magistrate’s Court Thika D.O. Case No. 46 of 2011. The Applicant also seeks an order of prohibition to restrain the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Thika from enforcing the decision of the Tribunal. The Land Disputes Tribunal Githurai is the 1st Respondent and the Chief Magistrate Court, Thika is the 2nd Respondent. Francis Mwangi is the 1st Interested party whereas Stephen Kibe is the 2nd Interested party.
The respondents conceded the application when the matter came up for hearing on 1st July, 2013. The interested parties did not file any replies despite being served with the application.
In summary, the Applicant’s case is that he is the registered owner of LR No. RUIRU/KIU/BLOCK 12/352 and the 1ST Respondent did not have any jurisdiction to hear a dispute involving the said parcel of land. The jurisdiction of the defunct Githurai Land Disputes Tribunal (the Tribunal) was, according to Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990, limited to cases of a civil nature involving a dispute as 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.
There is nowhere in which it is indicated that the Tribunal was to hear disputes concerning ownership of land. Jurisdiction is given by statute and not assumed. The Tribunal by entertaining a matter in which the Applicant had a certificate of lease clearly exceeded its jurisdiction.
The proceedings and the Award of the Tribunal are thus called into this court and quashed. An order of prohibition will also issue prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from adopting and or enforcing the decision of the Tribunal. There is no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of December, 2013
W. K. KORIR,
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT