[2014] KEHC 274 (KLR)
The court held that a scene visit to the suit land was not warranted in the context of a judicial review application where the main issue was the jurisdiction of the tribunal, not the factual question of occupation or use of the land. The court emphasized that judicial review proceedings are limited to examining the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Chairman Imenti North District Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: David Muthengi Muriungi; Applicant: Mary Muthoni M'Mbui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 92 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Scene Visit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Certiorari, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Chairman Imenti North District Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
David Muthengi Muriungi
Interested Party
Mary Muthoni M'Mbui
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Scene Visit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a scene visit to the suit land is necessary in a judicial review application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
- 2 Whether an interlocutory application can be filed after parties have closed hearing and filed final submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that a scene visit to the suit land was not warranted in the context of a judicial review application where the main issue was the jurisdiction of the tribunal, not the factual question of occupation or use of the land. The court emphasized that judicial review proceedings are limited to examining the legality of the tribunal's actions and do not extend to resolving factual disputes that would require a scene visit. Furthermore, the court found that the application for a scene visit was made after the parties had closed their cases and filed final submissions, and no sufficient cause was shown to justify reopening the proceedings for such an interlocutory application....
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for a scene visit is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent and the interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 92 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY EX-PARTE APPLICANT MARY MUTHONI M'MBUI TO CALL AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF IMENTI NORTH DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ON LDT NO. 30 OF 2011 NOW MERU CM LDT NO. 42 OF 2011.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO. NYAKI/KITHOKA/2999 REGISTERED UNDER CAP 30 OF THE REGISTERED LAND ACT.
REPUBLIC............................................APPLICANT
AND
THE CHAIRMAN IMENTI NORTH DISTRICT LAND
DISPUTES TRIBUNAL..........................RESPONDENT
DAVID MUTHENGI MURIUNGI...INTERESTED PARTY
VS
MARY MUTHONI M'MBUI.......Ex-Parte APPLICANT
RULING
This application is dated 5th August, 2013. It seeks order that;-
The Honourable Court do visit the locus in quo (scene visit) of land parcel No. NYAKI/KITHOKA/2999 THE SUBJECT MATTER IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE DATES OF HIGHLIGHTING THE SUBMISSIONS.
Costs be provided for by the respondent.
It is supported by the affidavit of the applicant's advocate sworn on 5th August 2013.
The application is opposed by the interested party who has submitted that the parties had filed written submissions and no one objected. The interested party argued that in the Judicial Review application which has spawned this application, the issue is not who is in occupation of the land but whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute and if the tribunal had acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
I have looked at the main motion by the applicant dated 16th January, 2013. The main prayer is for an order of certiorari and the main ground is that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
I find that scene visit to the suit land is not merited.
On 17/7/2014, Mr Kirima offered to provide the Court with an authority to support his application regarding the issue of whether a party can file an interlocutory application after the parties have closed the hearing of a suit and final submissions have been filed. He was allowed 30 days to file any authority he had and apposite submissions.
When the matter came up for direction on 2/10/2014 he had not done so. Instead, through Mr Kiogora,advocate, he sought more time.
I have already found that the prayers in this application are not merited. I dismiss it with costs to the respondent and the interested party.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Meru this 30th day of October, 2014 in the presence of;
Cc. Lilian/Daniel
Kirima for the Applicant
Kieti for Respondent.
Kieti holding brief for Baithambu for the interested party.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE