Kadii Mbele Bulushi & 2 others v Katana Baya Mzanzu [2016] KEELC 340 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court upheld a family's loss of settlement plots because squatters who never applied for allocation had no proof of a better claim to the land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Tribunal's failure to analyse the evidence in its judgment vitiated its decision
No; what matters is that the parties were heard and the Tribunal considered the evidence including its site visit observations.
The court held that the Tribunal's award should not be faulted merely because it did not set out an analysis of the evidence. The Tribunal heard both sides, made site visit observations, and stated that the Claimant had proved his case, indicating that the members considered the evidence before them, including their own observations when they visited the site.
Whether the Appellants had a better claim over the suit properties allocated to the Respondent
No; the land was allocated to the Respondent by the Settlement Fund Trustee and the Appellants, as squatters, produced no evidence of application for allocation or of Trust Land status.
The evidence showed plots 274 and 622 Gongoni Settlement Scheme were allocated to the Respondent by the Settlement Fund Trustee on 31st August 1997. The Appellants produced no evidence that the land was Trust Land to which they were entitled under customary law, and produced no evidence of an application to the SFT for allocation. They therefore could not claim a better title over land belonging to the Government.
Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal over ownership of allocated land
The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; ownership of land allocated by the SFT was beyond its statutory mandate, though its findings were upheld in the Respondent's favour.
Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act limited the Tribunal to disputes over division of land, boundaries and trespass. Since the land was allocated to the Respondent by the SFT, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to vary that allocation, and the question of who owned the two parcels was beyond its jurisdiction. Notwithstanding this, the court upheld the outcome in the Respondent's favour and dismissed the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A tribunal or court need not expressly analyse all the evidence in its judgment so long as the parties were given a hearing and the decision indicates the evidence was considered.
- A Land Dispute Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act was limited to civil disputes involving division of land, determination of boundaries or trespass to land, and it could not determine ownership or vary an allocation by the Settlement Fund Trustee.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellants' Appeal is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Senior Principal Magistrate's Court (on appeal from the Malindi Land Disputes Tribunal, Land Case No. 28/11 of 2006)
- Land Case No. 28/11 of 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the award of the Malindi Land Disputes Tribunal in Land Case No. 28/11 of 2006 as adopted by the Senior Principal Magistrate
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kadii Mbele Bulushi & 2 others v Katana Baya Mzanzu [2016] KEELC 340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/340/eng@2016-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.