[2008] KEHC 906 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to determine ownership of land, a matter reserved for the High Court under section 3 of the Land Dispute Tribunal Act. As a result, the tribunal's decision was ultra vires and void. The court therefore granted the orders...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 906 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: REPUBLIC; Respondent: LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL MARAGUA; Respondent: CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT MURANGA; Applicant: PETER JOSEPH WAITHAKA MAINA; Respondent: PAUL GACHANJA; Respondent: GRACE WAITHIRA KARIUKI
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 649 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted. Orders of certiorari and prohibition issued. Costs to the ex parte applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition Orders, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Land Ownership 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
LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL MARAGUA
Respondent
CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT MURANGA
Respondent
PETER JOSEPH WAITHAKA MAINA
Applicant
PAUL GACHANJA
Respondent
GRACE WAITHIRA KARIUKI
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine issues of ownership of land.
- 2 Whether orders of certiorari and prohibition should issue to quash the tribunal's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by purporting to determine ownership of land, a matter reserved for the High Court under section 3 of the Land Dispute Tribunal Act. As a result, the tribunal's decision was ultra vires and void. The court therefore granted the orders of certiorari and prohibition as prayed, quashing the tribunal's decision and prohibiting its enforcement. Costs were awarded to the ex parte applicant.
Court Disposition
Application granted. Orders of certiorari and prohibition issued. Costs to the ex parte applicant.
Orders
- Orders of certiorari and prohibition are granted, quashing the decision of the Land Dispute Tribunal Maragua.
- Costs awarded to the ex parte applicant to be paid by the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Civ. Suit 649 of 2006
REPUBLIC………..………………………………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL MARAGUA…… 1STRESPONDENT
CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT MURANGA…. 2ND RESPONDENT
PAUL GACHANJA………….……………1ST INTERESTED PARTY
GRACE WAITHIRA KARIUKI…….……..2ND INTERESTED PARTY
EX – PARTE
PETER JOSEPH WAITHAKA MAINA
JUDGMENT
I. Background
1. The ex pate applicant is the registered absolute of proprietor of LR Loc 3/ Gituru/40 and LR Loc 3 Gituru/ T31.
2. He was sued in the lands Disputes tribunal by the respondent, one Paul Gacanya who claimed ownership of Loc3/ Gituru/ 40 by way of Trust on his behalf by the ex pate applicant. The tribunal entered judgement for the said claimant and went further to award Loc 3/Gituru/T.31 to one Grace Wathira Kariuki as also having had the land held in trust for her.
3. The ex pate applicant filed for Judicial Review Proceedings.
II. Judicial Review Proceeding
4. On the 2 October 2006 leave was granted to institute Judicial Review Proceedings (Nyamu J). The ex pate applicant failed to attend court.
5. The ex pate application sort orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash the finding of the tribunal.
II: Opinion
6. The findings of the tribunal exceeded the jurisdiction of that court. That under section 3 of the Land Dispute Tribunal Act the tribunal are not permitted to deal with issues of ownership of land. This lies only with the High Court of Kenya.
7. I hereby agree that the tribunal exceeded its powers. The said application be and is hereby granted as prayed.
8. Order that prays for certiorari and prohibition be accordingly granted.
9. There will be costs to the exparte applicant to be paid by the respondent.
DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2008 AT NARIOBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
N.M. Mugo instructed by Wa-Mugo & Co. Advocates for the exparte/ applicant-present
Kanyi Nduruma isntrucged by Kanyi Nduruma & Co. Advocates for the defendant - absent