[2010] KEHC 2383 (KLR)
The court found that judicial review proceedings are intended to challenge decisions or actions that have already been made and have legal effect. In this case, the Land Disputes Tribunal had not made any final decision, nor had any findings been adopted by the Magistrate's Court. As such, there was no decision or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2383 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: The Marakwet District Land Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Marakwet District Commissioner; Respondent: Marakwet District Lands Settlement Officer; Respondent: The Minister of Lands & Settlement; Interested Party: Kibiwott Chemwei; Interested Party: Joseph Kibiwot Chemwei; Interested Party: Jacob Kibiwot; Interested Party: Smith Kaino; Interested Party: Chepkiyeng Chelanga; Applicant: James Cheruiyot Cheptoo; Applicant: William Kiptarus Cheboi; Applicant: Paulo Komen Cheserek; Applicant: Elisha Kimaiyo Cherop
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 71 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Gazettement of Tribunal Members, Land Dispute Resolution
- 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
The Marakwet District Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Marakwet District Commissioner
Respondent
Marakwet District Lands Settlement Officer
Respondent
The Minister of Lands & Settlement
Respondent
Kibiwott Chemwei
Interested Party
Joseph Kibiwot Chemwei
Interested Party
Jacob Kibiwot
Interested Party
Smith Kaino
Interested Party
Chepkiyeng Chelanga
Interested Party
James Cheruiyot Cheptoo
Applicant
William Kiptarus Cheboi
Applicant
Paulo Komen Cheserek
Applicant
Elisha Kimaiyo Cherop
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to make orders when its members were allegedly not properly gazetted.
- 2 Whether there was a decision by the tribunal capable of being quashed by judicial review.
- 3 Whether judicial review is available where no final decision has been made by the tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that judicial review proceedings are intended to challenge decisions or actions that have already been made and have legal effect. In this case, the Land Disputes Tribunal had not made any final decision, nor had any findings been adopted by the Magistrate's Court. As such, there was no decision or order capable of being quashed by judicial review. The court also noted that the applicants' concerns regarding the gazettement of tribunal members were premature in the absence of a substantive decision. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed with costs to the respondents and interested parties.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for judicial review is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents and interested parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Miscellaneous Civil Application 71 of 2006
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
1. THEMARAKWETDISTRICTLAND
DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
2. MARAKWET DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
3. MARAKWET DISTRICT LANDS SETTLEMENT
OFFICER
4. THE MINISTER OF LANDS & SETTLEMENT……....RESPONDENTS
AND
1. KIBIWOTT CHEMWEI
2. JOSEPH KIBIWOT CHEMWEI
3. JACOB KIBIWOT
4. SMITH KAINO AND
5. CHEPKIYENG CHELANGA………………………INTERESTED PARTIES
AND
1. JAMES CHERUIYOT CHEPTOO
2. WILLIAM KIPTARUS CHEBOI
3. PAULO KOMEN CHESEREK
4. ELISHA KIMAIYO CHEROP……………………EX-PARTE APPLICANTS
RULING
I.Background.
1. A dispute between two clans as to the boundary has been going
on for several years. In this Current judicial review proceedings,
a land disputes tribunalwas held.It in fact was not complete
in its findings. There has been nodecision adopted by the
Magistrate’s Court.
2. The exparte applicant applies for thesaid lands disputes
tribunal stoppedfrom making orders on grounds that the said
tribunal members were sitting without basis as none were
gazetted under the gazette notice provided. Its civil L.N.288/04
of 14. 4.2004 by A. KimunyaMinister of Lands as he then was.
II.In reply:
3. The Advocate for the respondent, Attorney General left it to
Court.The advocate for the interested party claim that there was nothing to quash as no decision had been taken.
III.Opinion
4. Judicial review proceedings are brought into Court against
orders making decisions that are detrimental to the exparte
appeallant. In this particular case no decision has been made to quash the said findings of the elders (which findings is denied).
5. The application for judicial review proceedings are hereby dismissed
with costs to the respondent and interested party.
Dated at Eldoret this 21st day of April, 2010
………………………………………………
M.A. ANG’AWA,
JUDGE.