Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedJudicial Review Application arising from Notice of Motion dated 18th February, 2009· [2017] KEELC 3456 (KLR)

Francis Musyoki Katumo v Chairman Central Division Lands Dispute Tribunal & 2 others [2017] KEELC 3456 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
3 March 2017
OAOscar A. Angote
513 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed that Land Dispute Tribunals cannot decide who owns land or order changes to the land register—only the High Court can.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant, the registered owner of parcel Muputi/Kiima-Kimwe/928, sought judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition against the decision of the Central Division Lands Dispute Tribunal delivered on 27th October, 2008, by which the Tribunal directed that the disputed area revert to parcel Muputi/Kiima-Kimwe/920 and that the Land Registrar Machakos effect the change. That decision was read and adopted as the judgment of the Machakos Senior Resident Magistrate's Court on 2nd December, 2008 in Land Case Number 159 of 2008. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal acted wrongfully, ultra vires, arbitrarily and in excess of jurisdiction, since the dispute was not one envisaged by Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act and the Tribunal had no power to determine title to land. The Respondents and the Interested Party filed no response. Notably, the Attorney General conceded on behalf of the 1st Respondent that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The court found both parcels registered under the Registered Land Act (repealed), under which only the High Court may order rectification of the register pursuant to Section 143(1). Both advocates' submissions were held correct. The court allowed the Notice of Motion in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3: certiorari to quash the Tribunal's decision, prohibition against its enforcement, and costs against the Respondents and Interested Party jointly or severally.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal over title to land

Holding

The Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in purporting to revert part of Plot No. 928 to Plot No. 920 and in directing the Land Registrar to effect a change in the register

Reasoning

The parcels were registered under the Registered Land Act (repealed), under which only the High Court has power to order rectification of the register (Section 143(1)). The dispute between the Applicant and the Interested Party was not one envisaged by Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. Both counsel and the Attorney General conceded that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, making its decision ultra vires and in excess of jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A Land Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine title to land or order rectification of the register; only the High Court may order rectification of the register under Section 143(1) of the Registered Land Act (repealed)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Certiorari to remove to the High Court and quash the decision, proceedings and award of the Central Division Lands Dispute Tribunal made on 27th October, 2008 in Case Number 29 of 2007, read and adopted as judgment of the Machakos Court on 2nd December, 2008 in Machakos SRM Land Case Number 159 of 2008
  2. 2.Prohibition prohibiting further steps in enforcing the said decision or any resulting judgment, decree or order
  3. 3.Costs of the application borne by the Respondents and the Interested Party jointly or severally

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal ActSection 3(1)
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)Section 143(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court over the decision of a Land Disputes Tribunal; Registered Land Act (repealed), Section 143(1); Land Disputes Tribunal Act, Section 3(1)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Musyoki Katumo v Chairman Central Division Lands Dispute Tribunal & 2 others [2017] KEELC 3456 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application arising from Notice of Motion dated 18th February, 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3456/eng@2017-03-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.