[2014] KEHC 6943 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Tribunal correctly declined to adjudicate the dispute over LR. Nos. 1192 and 1188, as the High Court had already made a determination on the same subject matter. The tribunal's acknowledgment of its lack of jurisdiction, though belated, did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6943 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Salome Dingiria; Appellant: Wisdom N. Dingiria (as the personal representatives of the late Alexander Dingieria); Respondent: Herbert Ngisiange Muhindi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 146 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Adverse Possession, 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
Salome Dingiria
Appellant
Wisdom N. Dingiria (as the personal representatives of the late Alexander Dingieria)
Appellant
Herbert Ngisiange Muhindi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine a dispute already decided by the High Court.
- 2 Whether the appeal had merit given the prior High Court determination on the same land parcels.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Dispute Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Tribunal correctly declined to adjudicate the dispute over LR. Nos. 1192 and 1188, as the High Court had already made a determination on the same subject matter. The tribunal's acknowledgment of its lack of jurisdiction, though belated, did not prejudice the parties. The appeal was found to have no merit since the appellants were neither parties to the original High Court suit nor had they applied to be joined. The doctrine of res judicata and the principle that tribunals cannot revisit matters conclusively determined by the High Court were decisive. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
COPY
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2011
SALOME DINGIRIA
WISDOM N. DINGIRIA (as the personal representatives of the late
ALEXANDER DINGIERIA ........................................ ................... APPELLANTS
- V E R S U S -
HERBERT NGISIANGE MUHINDI ................................................ RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
[1] The parties herein lived on a piece of land, that they did not quite identify. Their dispute attracted the attention of the then area Chief Leishanila. He advised the parteis to file a case before the area District Officer. A case was duly filed and the parties to the suit took part. The proceedings are mainly an analysis of the history leading to that occupation. The D.O and Chief went to the same and found that the land was not trust land but private land. They tried to reconcile the parties to no avail. later many witnesses gave evidence and the Land Dispute Tribunal gave its verdict.
[2] The verdict merely says that this land was parcel LR. Plot Numbers 1192 and 1188. That the dispute was subject to High Court Civil suit No. 233 of 1994. Further that the various people 118 of them had brought a suit for adverse possession on those plots and that the defendant was not one of them. The tribunal says that, that case was decided by the High Court and according to the tribunal they did not want to interfere with the High Court judgment and that Herbert Ngisiange Muhindi is the owner. From the decision therein, it is clear that the tribunal was saying that it had no jurisdiction as the High Court had decided on the matter.
The Provincial Appeals Tribunal confirmed the award of the tribunal and dismissed the award.
[3] I really cannot see the basis of this appeal. It is not argued that the land dispute was not LR. Nos. 1192 and 1188 in which the High Court had made a determination. it is also not argued that the appellant was one of the parties or applied to be joined in that High Court case. it should be understood that the tribunal was composed of laymen. The desirable thing would have been for them to say from the outset that they had no jurisdiction in a matter heard by High Court instead of hearing the case and arriving to such a verdict. But what prejudice did this cause to the parties, I cannot find any.
I must say I find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with each party to bear their own costs.
Dated and delivered in open court at Mombasa this 14th day of February, 2014.
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE
14. 2.2014
In the presence of:
Nyamboye Advocate for Katete Advocate for respondent.