[2012] KEHC 1426 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by entertaining a claim for specific performance and ordering the transfer of land, which is not within the scope of matters it is empowered to determine under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. Furthermore, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1426 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: The Chairman, Land Disputes Tribunal Lugari Division; Respondent: Chief Magistrate – Kakamega; Applicant: Jonah Seroney Kipkoech; Interested Party: Robert Bulimo Nyahera; Interested Party: Peter Cheruiyot; Interested Party: Benjamin Kibet Berton
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 4 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Specific Performance, Land Disputes, Procedural Irregularities
- 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 Chairman, Land Disputes Tribunal Lugari Division
Respondent
Chief Magistrate – Kakamega
Respondent
Jonah Seroney Kipkoech
Applicant
Robert Bulimo Nyahera
Interested Party
Peter Cheruiyot
Interested Party
Benjamin Kibet Berton
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Certiorari
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to order specific performance and transfer of land.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision was valid given its composition and lack of reasons.
- 3 Whether the adoption of the Tribunal's award by the Chief Magistrate was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by entertaining a claim for specific performance and ordering the transfer of land, which is not within the scope of matters it is empowered to determine under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision was invalid as it was not signed by all required members, violating Section 4(2) of the Act, and no reasons were provided for the decision, contrary to Section 3(8) of the Act. These procedural and substantive defects rendered the Tribunal's decision and its subsequent adoption by the Chief Magistrate unlawful. As a result, the court allowed the application...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to quash the decision of the Lugari Division Land Disputes Tribunal concerning Plot No. 620 (Kakamega/Lumakanda/620) and any subsequent adoption of the decision by the Chief Magistrate – Kakamega in CMCC Award No. 173 of 2007.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kakamega
Miscellaneous Civil Application 4 of 2009 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
14. 00
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLLIC …………………………………………………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN, LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL LUGARI DIVISION
CHIEF MAGISTRATE – KAKAMEGA ….......…………………….. RESPONDENTS
AND
ROBERT BULIMO NYAHERA ………....…..…………. 1ST INTERESTED PARTY
PETER CHERUIYOT …………….……..…………….. 2ND INTERESTED PARTY
BENJAMIN KIBET BERTON ……...…………………. 3RD INTERESTED PARTY
EX-PARTE – JONAH SERONEY KIPKOECH
R U L I N G
The application by way of Notice of Motion dated 24. 2.09 seeks orders as follows:-
“a) That an order of Certiorari do issue to remove into this court and quashthe undated decision of the LUGARI DIVION LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL REF. KAK/LUG/LUMA/CA3/2007 concerning Plot No. 620 (KAAKAMEGA/LUMAKANDA/620) read on 26. 11. 2008 and subsequently any decision by the Chief Magistrate – Kakamega to (adopt) enter as judgment the aforesaid decision in KAKAMEGA CMCC AWARD NO. 173 of 2007.
b) That the Applicant’s costs of this application be paid by the interested parties jointly and severally.”
According to the statement of facts and the affidavits verifying the facts, the ex-parte applicant, JONAH SERONEY BERTON he obtained a portion of L.P. NO. Kakamega/Lumakanda/620 pursuant to a decree issued in KAKAMEGA HCCC. NO. 178/1987. That the title to L.P.NO. KAKAMEGA/LUMAKANDA/620 was closed following sub-division on 10. 12. 06.
That the applicants commenced proceedings before the Land Disputes Tribunal, Lugari Division concerning L.P. NO. KAKAMEGA/LUMAKANDA/620. That the said Tribunal ordered that the ex-parte applicant to transfer the land in question to the applicants; That the Interested Parties may move the Lower Court to have the award of the Tribunal adopted.
The Ex-parte Applicant was represented by Gabriel Fwaya Advocate while the Interested Parties were represented by the firm of Gichaba Ondieki Advocate. The ex-parte applicant filed written submissions. The Interested Parties’ Advocate did not file any reply to the application nor file submissions and did not appear on the hearing date.
I agree with the submissions of the Applicants’ counsel that the Tribunal entertained a claim for specific performance and made orders for the transfer of the land contrary to the Provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990 which states as follows:-
“Subject to this Act, all cases of a civil nature involving a dispute as to –
(a)The division of, or the determination of boundaries to land, including land held in common;
(b)A claim to occupy or work land; or
(c)Trespass to land.
Shall be heard and determined by a Tribunal established under section 4. ”
The Tribunal’s decision is signed by the Chairman and Secretary only. The composition of the panel violates the provisions of S.4 (2) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990.
No reasons were given for the Tribunals decision contrary to the provisions of Section 3 (8) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990.
Consequently, the application is allowed. Each party to bear own costs.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 27th day of September, 2012
B. THURANIRA JADEN
J U D G E