[2004] KEHC 1250 (KLR)
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the appeal sought to be filed was incompetent. The Land Disputes Tribunals Act expressly requires that appeals from the Tribunal's decision must first be made to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee for the relevant province. Only after the Appeals...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1250 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Kanko Karrao; Respondent: Peter Kangango Mathu; Respondent: Samson Karanja Munyua; Respondent: Onesmus Ndungu Wachanga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 986 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals, Appeals Process, Competency of Appeals
- 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
Stephen Kanko Karrao
Appellant
Peter Kangango Mathu
Respondent
Samson Karanja Munyua
Respondent
Onesmus Ndungu Wachanga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal directly from a Land Disputes Tribunal decision without first appealing to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee.
- 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal out of time is competent under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the appeal sought to be filed was incompetent. The Land Disputes Tribunals Act expressly requires that appeals from the Tribunal's decision must first be made to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee for the relevant province. Only after the Appeals Committee has rendered its decision can a further appeal be made to the High Court. The applicant's attempt to appeal directly from the Tribunal's decision, as confirmed by the Magistrate, bypassed the statutory appellate process and was not contemplated by the Act. As such, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the orders sought, and the application was dismissed with...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for leave to file appeal out of time is dismissed.
- The applicant shall pay costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 986 OF 2003
STEPHEN KANKO KARRAO ………………...………… APPELLANT VERSUS PETER KANGANGO MATHU SAMSON KARANJA MUNYUA ONESMUS NDUNGU WACHANGA ………….….…. RESPONDENTS
RULING
This is an application under Section 79 G of the Civil Procedure Act for leave to file appeal out of time from the decision of Hon. Ndungu, RM, Kajiado dated 16th December, 2002 and 12th February, 2003, who confirmed and adopted the award of the Land Disputes Tribunal.
Section 8 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act 1990 (Act No 18 of 1990) provides for the procedure of appeal from a decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal established under Section 4 of that Act. Section 8 (9) of the Act provides that there is no direct appeal to this court from a decision of that Tribunal. Before one can appeal to this court, he is required by Section 8 (1) to appeal to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee established under Section 9 (1) of the Act for the province in which the land is the subject matter of the dispute is situated. An appeal to this court can only be from the decision of such an Appeals Committee.
In the draft Memorandum of Appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant, it is stated that the appeal was against the decision of the Land Dispute Tribunal in case No 33 of 2002 and the Judgment delivered by the Honourable Magistrate Miss H N Ndungu on 16th December, 2002 and 12th February, 2003 confirming the award (of the Tribunal) and the subsequent Ruling. Consequently, the Appellant sought that “the Tribunal Award and the Honourable Lower Court’s Ruling be set aside and the appeal allowed.
” As can be seen, the appeal is incompetent as the decisions appealed from are not contemplated nor provided for in the Land Disputes Tribunals Act in which the appeal is purportedly based. I, therefore, dismiss the application with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of November, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE