Mati M’murithi v Gitonga Nkobia & 3 others [2017] KEELC 1282 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land tribunals cannot cancel or issue title deeds; the High Court set aside such an order but let relatives keep living on their ancestral land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Provincial Appeals Committee had jurisdiction to revoke a registered title and order its registration in the names of several persons
It did not; that order was made without jurisdiction and is set aside.
The court relied on established authority that tribunals under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act are creatures of statute with limited jurisdiction under section 3(1), and cannot adjudicate title to land or order revocation and issuance of titles; such disputes are for the High Court or Resident Magistrate's Court. The appellant's cited authorities supported this position and the court found the revocation order ultra vires.
Whether the Provincial Committee could award land to a non-party (Edith Mbura Nkobia) to the District Tribunal proceedings
The court acknowledged the informality of tribunal proceedings but held that awards should be confined to occupation and working rights, not subdivision and issuance of titles.
The court noted the informality of tribunal proceedings can help redress injustices, particularly for women in areas where their rights are trampled upon, but the tribunals must remain within their statutory limits. It declined to disturb the award of occupation and working rights in the sizes fixed by the Provincial Committee, converting the title-based award into occupancy rights.
Whether the respondents should be evicted from the suit land
Eviction was refused as unconscionable, the land being ancestral land occupied by the respondents and not by the appellant.
The respondents claimed the land belonged to their grandfather and they had lived there all their lives; the appellant did not deny the land was ancestral or family land, nor that he bought it. The court held eviction would be unconscionable and contrary to the constitutional spirit of substantial justice, and declined to order eviction.
Legal principles established
#- District and Provincial Land Dispute Tribunals have no jurisdiction to revoke titles or order the issue of new titles to litigants.
- Land Disputes Tribunals should confine themselves to awards of rights to occupy or work land and should not direct subdivision or issuance of new titles.
- Land Disputes Tribunals are required to apply recognized customary law, including in determining the rights of women at appellate level.
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Eastern Provincial Committee to revoke the title to parcel No. Kiera/E. Magutuni/1540 and to give separate titles to 7 individuals including the appellant is set aside
- 2.In lieu thereof the 7 individuals including the appellant are awarded rights to occupy and work land in terms of the sizes contained in the Eastern Provincial Committee's decision
- 3.As the parties are close relatives, they will bear their own costs in this appeal and in the District and Provincial Tribunals
- On appeal from
- Eastern Province Appeals Committee
- L.D.T. No. 27 of 2001
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8(9) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act (appeal certified as raising issues of law)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mati M’murithi v Gitonga Nkobia & 3 others [2017] KEELC 1282 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Meru Chief Magistrate's Court L.D.T. No. 27 of 2001 (appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1282/eng@2017-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.