[2013] KEHC 5040 (KLR)
The application for prohibition was rendered moot and ineffective by the repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and the establishment of the Environment and Land Court under Act No.19 of 2011. Since the tribunal no longer existed, there was no body to prohibit, and all pending proceedings, including the disputed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5040 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Kipkurui Langat a.k.a. Paul Kisang Langat; Respondent: Transmara East District Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Gabriel Soi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 75 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Substantive Motion for Prohibition
- Outcome
- application struck out as moot
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Abolition of Tribunals, Environment and Land Court Transition, Res Judicata
- 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
Stanley Kipkurui Langat a.k.a. Paul Kisang Langat
Applicant
Transmara East District Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Gabriel Soi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Substantive Motion for Prohibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine Land Dispute Case No.2 of 2011.
- 2 Whether the matter was res judicata in light of Kisi HCCC No.80 of 2003.
- 3 Whether the application for prohibition was rendered moot by the repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and establishment of the Environment and Land Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for prohibition was rendered moot and ineffective by the repeal of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and the establishment of the Environment and Land Court under Act No.19 of 2011. Since the tribunal no longer existed, there was no body to prohibit, and all pending proceedings, including the disputed case, could now be heard by the Environment and Land Court. The court therefore struck out the application as it had no practical effect.
Court Disposition
application struck out as moot
Orders
- The application is struck out.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nakuru
Judicial Review 75 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
SW 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]
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INSTITUTE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL, TRANSMARA EAST DISTRICT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT
BETWEEN
STANLEY KIPKURUI LANGAT A.K.A. PAUL KISANG LANGAT……...….APPLICANT
AND
THE TRANSMARA EAST DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL....RESPONDENT
GABRIEL SOI…………………………………………….....…....INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
Pursuant to leave granted to him on 23rd June, 2011 the applicant brought a motion on 27th June, 2011 to prohibit the Transmara East District Land Dispute Tribunal from hearing and determining Land Dispute Case No.2 of 2011 between the interested party and the applicant, contending that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and secondly that the case was res judicator Kisi HCCC No.80 of 2003.
At the stage of leave, the court directed that leave granted would operate as a stay of further proceedings by the tribunal in case No.2 of 2011. Parties filed submissions and sought a date for the ruling.
In the meantime, on 30th August, 2011 the Environment and Land Court was established by Act No.19 of 2011, the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, which also repealed the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, No.18 of 1990. That effectively renders this application ineffective as the tribunal does not exist and cannot be prohibited.
All proceedings, including case No.2 of 2011 can now, by dint of Section 30(1)of the Environment and Land Court Act, be heard by the Environment and Land Court.
The application fails for that reason and is struck out. I award no costs.
Dated and Signed at Nakuru this 4th day of February, 2013.
W. OUKO
JUDGE
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 12th day of February, 2013 by Hon. Justice M.J. Anyara Emukule.
JUDGE