[2011] KEHC 1218 (KLR)
The court held that both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Tribunal exceeded their statutory jurisdiction by making decisions affecting the title and subdivision of registered land. The Registered Land Act reserves such matters for the courts, not the tribunals. Since the tribunals' decisions...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1218 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Mbothu Njoroge; Respondent: Njenga Njoroge & Another
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 635 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Registered Land Act Application, Appeals Process, Land Title 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
Stephen Mbothu Njoroge
Appellant
Njenga Njoroge & Another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to registered land under the Registered Land Act.
- 2 Whether the decisions of the tribunals, which involved subdivision of registered land, were valid in law.
- 3 Whether the Provincial Appeals Tribunal erred in upholding the elders' decision despite acknowledging the land was registered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Tribunal exceeded their statutory jurisdiction by making decisions affecting the title and subdivision of registered land. The Registered Land Act reserves such matters for the courts, not the tribunals. Since the tribunals' decisions related to title and subdivision, they were null and void for want of jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the decisions of both tribunals were set aside. The appellant was awarded costs.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The decisions of the Limuru Land District Tribunal dated 28th July, 2003 and the Central Province Appeals Tribunal dated 31st May, 2007 are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2007
STEPHEN MBOTHU NJOROGE...............................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
NJENGA NJOROGE & ANOTHER........................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The dispute herein involves a parcel of land known as Limuru/ Kamirithu/1139. The dispute was first heard by the District Land Tribunal, Limuru Division. This tribunal ordered that the land measuring 1. 70 acres be divided among the 4 beneficiaries named in the award. Dissatisfied with the said decision the appellant moved to the Central Province Appeals Tribunal, Nyeri which made a decision confirming the verdict of the Land Disputes Tribunal, Limuru Division. However the said Provincial Tribunal allowed the aggrieved party to appeal.
The decision of the Provincial Tribunal has the following statement,
“Having heard and considered the representations of all the parties and having considered all documents submitted to us we hereby decide as follows,
1. The land has title.
2. The matter be referred to court.
3. The elders decision still stand.
4. Right of appeal in 60 days allowed.
5. Each party to pay its costs”.
That is the decision that prompted this appeal and in the Memorandum of Appeal the following grounds have been raised.
1. The Appeals Committee erred in law in failing to overturn the decision of the elders in spite of the fact that the elders acted outside their powers in arriving at the decision they did as they had dealt and interfered with the suit premises which is land already registered under the Registered Land Act Cap 300 Laws of Kenya.
2. The Appeals Committee having held that the land in issue was registered erred in law in proceeding to hold that the decision of the elders still stood and referering the parties to court as opposed to reversing the decision of the elders and dismissing the reference by the respondents herein.
3. The Appeals Committee erred in law in arriving at the decision that was self contradictory, confusing, inconsistent and against the law.
Both learned counsel for the parties herein have filed written submissions which I have noted. It is common ground that the land is registered under the Registered Land Act Cap 300 Laws of Kenya. The jurisdiction of the Lands Disputes Tribunal is set out in the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 Section 3(1) thereof. That jurisdiction is limited to matters relating to,
a)The division of or determination of boundaries to land including land held in common.
b)A claim to occupy or work on land; or
c)Trespass to land.
Going by the record before me right from the Divisional Tribunal to the Provincial Appeals Tribunal, those are not the issues that were canvassed before them. It is clear that the issues related to title and this is confirmed by the decision to subdivide the land into four portions.Clearly this was beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Disputes Tribunal under the said Act. I know there are different views by the High Court in respect of that position but with respect, the provisions of the Registered Land Act are clear and in particular Section 159.
I am unable to uphold the decision of the Provincial Appeals Tribunal and therefore this appeal must succeed. The sum is accordingly allowed. It follows that both the decision of the Limuru Land District Tribunal made on 28th July, 2003 and that of the Central Province Appeals Tribunal made on 31st May, 2007 must be set aside. The appellant shall have the costs of this appeal.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 20th Day of July, 2011
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE