Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (ex-parte notice of motion dated 3rd July, 2003)· [2018] KEELC 204 (KLR)

Republic v Waitaluk Land Disputes Tribunal Comprising of Mboto Kidai Ezekiel Kessio Paul Karop & 2 others Exparte Cheseret Arap Maina [2018] KEELC 204 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
7 December 2018
1,912 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed Land Disputes Tribunals could not decide land sale contract disputes, and quashed the Tribunal's decision entirely.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, Cheseret Arap Maina, moved the High Court at Kitale by notice of motion dated 3rd July 2003 under Order 53 Rules 3 & 4 seeking certiorari to quash the decision of the Waitaluk Land Disputes Tribunal, which had been adopted as the judgment of the Senior Principal Magistrate's Court at Kitale on 29th April 2003. He argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine or modify a contract for the sale of land, that it purported to order specific performance of a void contract (the agreement having failed for want of payment and Land Control Board consent), that its members were not gazetted, and that natural justice was breached. The 3rd respondent maintained the Tribunal had jurisdiction and merely determined occupation; the 4th respondent (Attorney General) filed grounds of opposition attacking the competency and timeliness of the motion. The court held that the application for leave filed on 11th June 2003 was within the six-month period under Order 53 rule 2. On the merits, applying Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, the court found the Tribunal's jurisdiction confined to boundary divisions, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass; a dispute over a sale of land contract was outside its mandate, so the Tribunal acted ultra vires and its entire proceedings were null and void. The natural justice and gazettement grounds failed or were not pursued. The court allowed the application, quashed the Tribunal's proceedings and decision, and awarded the applicant costs. Judgment was delivered at Kitale on 7th December 2018 by C. K. Yano, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals over land sale contracts

Holding

The Tribunal acted ultra vires and in excess of jurisdiction by purporting to determine a dispute over a contract for the sale of land; its proceedings and decision were null and void.

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act limited Tribunals to disputes over division or boundaries of land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. A dispute over a sale agreement and enforcement of a contract falls outside these heads. The framers never intended Tribunals to deal with sale of land agreements or enforce contracts, so the Tribunal's ruling acknowledging one sale agreement and revoking another was ultra vires.

p. 3
02

Timeliness of the application for leave under Order 53 rule 2

Holding

The application for leave filed on 11th June 2003 was within the six-month limitation period measured from the adoption of the Tribunal decision as judgment on 29th April 2003.

Reasoning

Order 53 rule 2 requires an application for leave to seek certiorari to be made not later than six months after the date of the proceedings. The decision was adopted as judgment of the court on 29th April 2003, and leave was sought on 11th June 2003, well within six months. The competency attack on the motion therefore failed.

p. 2
03

Gazettement of Tribunal members

Holding

The court declined to quash the decision on the ground of a mismatch between gazetted names and the names of the elders who sat, because it was not clear whether they were the same persons.

Reasoning

The gazette notice of 4th February 1994 for Trans-Nzoia District listed Mboto Giddi, Paul Rop and Hezekiah Kesio, while the elders who sat were recorded as Mboto Kidai, Ezekiel Kessio and Paul Karop. The court found the names possibly referred to the same persons and expressly declined to base its decision on the mismatch.

p. 3
04

Alleged breach of natural justice

Holding

The ground failed: the applicant was heard, and the third party Vincent Kusimba is not a party to the proceedings and cannot be represented by the applicant.

Reasoning

The court perused the Tribunal proceedings and found the applicant was given a hearing. The claim that the Tribunal condemned the third-party buyer unheard could not be advanced by the applicant on behalf of that third party, who was not before the court, and there was no proof of an agreement between the applicant and Kusimba.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Land Disputes Tribunals had jurisdiction only over the civil disputes enumerated in Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and could not determine or enforce contracts for the sale of land; where a Tribunal acts in excess of its powers, the remedy is to declare the whole proceedings null and void.
  • The High Court's supervisory role over public bodies such as Land Disputes Tribunals is to ensure decisions are reached in accordance with the law and parties are treated fairly.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proceedings and decision of Waitaluk Land Disputes Tribunal adopted by the 2nd respondent in Kitale SPMCC Land Case No. 64 of 2002 on 29/4/2003 are removed into the High Court and quashed
  2. 2.The applicant is awarded the costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rules 3 & 4
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 rule 3(1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed)Section 3(1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed)Section 3(2), (3), (4) and 5
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed)Section 4(1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed)Section 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Actservice of summons provisions
Jurisdiction invoked
Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over decisions of public bodies, via Order 53 Rules 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (certiorari against a Land Disputes Tribunal decision adopted as judgment of Kitale SPMCC Land Case No. 54 of 2002)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Waitaluk Land Disputes Tribunal Comprising of Mboto Kidai Ezekiel Kessio Paul Karop & 2 others Exparte Cheseret Arap Maina [2018] KEELC 204 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (ex-parte notice of motion dated 3rd July, 2003). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/204/eng@2018-12-07

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