Republic v Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal – Uriri Division Migori District & another Ex parte Charles Okinyi Oloo (suing as Legal Rep. of the estate of Richard Oloo Oketch – Deceased) [2017] KEELC 1959 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land tribunal's award that gave away part of a registered owner's land because the tribunal exceeded its powers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Uriri Division Land Disputes Tribunal existed in law and had jurisdiction over the dispute
The tribunal's award was null and void; the tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction and could not award 3.2 hectares of the applicant's registered land to the interested party
The Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990 limited tribunals to boundary determination, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The tribunal, in purporting to subdivide the suit land and award 3.2 hectares of the applicant's registered parcel to the interested party, exceeded its statutory mandate and acted ultra vires. Its failure to give reasons compounded the illegality, justifying certiorari.
Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing before the tribunal
The tribunal was improperly constituted and violated the rules of natural justice, rendering its decision void
The court, relying on Ridge v Baldwin as summarised in Manyasi v Gicheru, held that a decision made in breach of natural justice is void. The tribunal failed to give reasons for its ruling and acted on irrelevant considerations, offending Article 50(1) of the Constitution and the fair-hearing principles recognized in Kotut v Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Goldenberg Affairs.
Whether the ELC has jurisdiction to grant prerogative orders of certiorari and prohibition
The ELC, being a court with the status of the High Court under Article 162(2), has jurisdiction to grant certiorari and prohibition
The court held that certiorari lies to remove and quash the record of a subordinate tribunal, and prohibition forbids a body from continuing in excess of jurisdiction. Section 13(7)(b) of the ELC Act empowers the ELC, as a High Court-status court, to grant such prerogative orders as are just.
Legal principles established
#- A decision given without observing the principles of natural justice is void
- No public body can act in bad faith or on irrelevant grounds; any such act is unauthorised and ultra vires
- Failure to give reasons for a decision is a ground for judicial review intervention
Court orders
#- 1.Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the award/ruling of the Uriri Division Land Disputes Tribunal adopted as a decree by the Principal Magistrate's Court Migori on 24th April 2007 in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2007
- 2.Order of Prohibition directed against the District Land Registrar Migori prohibiting him from implementing the consequent decree dated 24th April 2007
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 13(7)(b) of the ELC Act 2015 (2012); Order LIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal – Uriri Division Migori District & another Ex parte Charles Okinyi Oloo (suing as Legal Rep. of the estate of Richard Oloo Oketch – Deceased) [2017] KEELC 1959 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 14th June 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1959/eng@2017-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.