Republic v Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal & another Ex - Parte Joyce Wanjiru Maina & another [2017] KEELC 2817 (KLR)

Section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act limited Tribunals to disputes over division of or boundaries to land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The interested party's claim sought specific performance of a sale agreement with George Maina, which falls outside those categories. Such disputes must be presented before the ordinary courts.

The High Court in Succession Cause No. 224 of 2005 had already distributed the estate and George Maina was not among the beneficiaries. By ordering his inclusion and the registration of 1.5 acres in the interested party's name, the Tribunal effectively sat on appeal over the High Court's distribution, which it had no jurisdiction to do.

The suit land was agricultural land requiring Land Control Board consent under the Land Control Act. The Tribunal had no power to circumvent that statutory requirement or to allocate to itself the power to validate sales of agricultural land, a power vested in the Land Control Board.

At the time of the 1998 sale agreement, the owner of the land (the deceased) had already died and George Maina did not hold letters of administration over the estate. The court found it inexplicable that the Tribunal sought to enforce such a sale by a person without capacity.

The interested party argued the applicant should have appealed within the 30 days allowed. The court held that no law bars an aggrieved person from bringing judicial review proceedings against a Tribunal decision; appeal was optional and did not exclude the motion.