[2001] KEHC 122 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's intended application for judicial review was not frivolous, as the Land Disputes Tribunal appeared to have acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by revoking registered land titles, a power not conferred by Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Consequently, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 122 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Njuguna Nduguti; Respondent: Kiambu District Land Disputes
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Children Miscellaneous Application 317 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Orders
- Outcome
- Application for leave allowed with costs in the cause; leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition granted; leave to operate as stay of further proceedings in Resident Magistrate's court.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Title Revocation, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Samuel Njuguna Nduguti
Applicant
Kiambu District Land Disputes
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kiambu District Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to revoke title and sub-titles for the suit parcels.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Tribunal and Resident Magistrate.
- 3 Whether the grant of leave should operate as a stay of further proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's intended application for judicial review was not frivolous, as the Land Disputes Tribunal appeared to have acted outside its statutory jurisdiction by revoking registered land titles, a power not conferred by Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition. The court further held that the grant of leave should operate as a stay of any further proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's court, pending the determination of the substantive application.
Court Disposition
Application for leave allowed with costs in the cause; leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition granted; leave to operate as stay of further proceedings in Resident Magistrate's court.
Orders
- Leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition granted.
- Grant of leave to operate as a stay of any further proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's court Githunguri.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 317 OF 2001
SAMUEL NJUGUNA NDUGUTI ………………….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIAMBU DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES …………… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Applicant seeks leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of Kiambu District Land Dispute Tribunal dated 23. 1.2001. Applicant also applies for leave to apply for an order of prohibition to prohibit the Resident Magistrate Githunguri from reading/confirming and or enforcing the Award made by the Land Disputes Tribunal on 23. 1.2001. Applicant also prays that the grant of leave do operate as a stay of the orders of the Land Disputes Tribunal are of the Resident Magistrate Githunguri. By paragraph 5 of the applicants affidavit sworn on 6. 8.2001, the Resident Magistrate Githunguri confirmed and adopted the award of the Land Disputes Tribunal on 5. 7.2001 but stayed execution for 30 days. By the Board the Land Dispute Tribunal in effect revoked the original title for parcel No. Githunguri/Ikinu/2100 and the subsequent sub-titles for parcel Nos. Githunguri/Ikinu/2675 and 2676. Applicants complaints that the Land Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such orders by virtue of S.3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act – 1990.
In view of the limited jurisdiction given to the Land Disputes Tribunal by S.3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act the intended application is not frivolous and applicant is entitled to leave. In respect of the intended application for order of prohibition, the award was read and confirmed on 5. 7.2001 but it is not clear whether or not the decision of the court has been enforced. The order of stay limited to staying any further proceedings should be granted.
I allow the application with costs in the cause in the intended application. I grant leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition. I order that the grant of leave do operate as a stay of any further proceedings of the Resident Magistrate’s court Githunguri.
E.M. GITHINJI JUDGE 6. 11. 2001
Mr. Mburu for applicant present.