[2006] KEHC 173 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute before the Ndia Land Disputes Tribunal concerned the succession of land registered in the name of a deceased person. Under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, the Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to succession matters, which are governed by the Law of Succession...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 173 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Ndia Land Dispute Tribunal; Respondent: Resident Magistrate Baricho; Respondent: Joseph Muriithi Kamau; Respondent: Banson Mwangi Kamau; Respondent: Stephen Kinyua Kamau; Applicant: Johnson Kamau Naftaly
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 77B of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion allowed; orders sought granted with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Succession of Land, Ultra Vires Actions
- 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
Ndia Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
Resident Magistrate Baricho
Respondent
Joseph Muriithi Kamau
Respondent
Banson Mwangi Kamau
Respondent
Stephen Kinyua Kamau
Respondent
Johnson Kamau Naftaly
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ndia Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the succession of land registered in the name of a deceased person.
- 2 Whether the Resident Magistrate's Court acted lawfully in adopting the Tribunal's award as a decree.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal acted ultra vires its statutory powers under Section 3(1) of Act 18/1990.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute before the Ndia Land Disputes Tribunal concerned the succession of land registered in the name of a deceased person. Under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, the Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to succession matters, which are governed by the Law of Succession Act. The Tribunal therefore acted ultra vires by purporting to distribute the estate, and the Resident Magistrate's Court erred in adopting the Tribunal's award as a decree. The orders sought in the Notice of Motion were granted, quashing both the Tribunal's award and the Magistrate's adoption of the same.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion allowed; orders sought granted with costs.
Orders
- The award of the Ndia Land Disputes Tribunal is quashed.
- The order of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Baricho adopting the Tribunal's award as a decree is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Misc Civil Appli 77B of 2005
REPUBLIC ……….…….………………….......………..….APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. NDIA LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL
2. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE BARICHO
3. JOSEPH MURIITHI KAMAU
4. BANSON MWANGI KAMAU
5. STEPHEN KINYUA KAMAU………...................…RESPONDENTS
EXPARTE
1. JOHNSON KAMAU NAFTALY……....…..…INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
The Orders sought are in Judicial Review for the purpose of quashing award made by Ndia Land Disputes Tribunal and order to quash Baricho Resident Magistrate’s Court decision made on 5th day of May 2005 adopting the award as decree.
The grounds are set out in the statement dated 20/6/2005 alleging that the Tribunal acted ultra vires their powers in view of Section 3 (1) of Act 18/1990 in respect of issues relating to succession of land of a deceased person. And that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with distribution of an estate of deceased which in jurisdiction is vested under the provisions of Act 160 Succession Act. And that in the result the order of Resident Magistrate was illegal.
I have read the copies of proceedings in the Tribunal. It is clear the land is still registered in the name of a deceased person see “JKN1 and “JKN11” being green card and death certificate of the proprietor. There is also exhibited a grant of representation of the registered proprietor issued to Johnson Kamau Naftali Kibure on 3/2/2005 who is the exparte applicant. The grant appears not to have been confirmed yet.
It is clear to me that the dispute before the Tribunal was in regard to the succession of that land Mwema/Mukure/57 which dispute has to be handled under the Succession Act.
In the circumstances I allow Notice of Motion and grant orders sought with costs.
Dated this 11th May 2006.
J.K. KHAMINWA
JUDGE