Republic v Waitaluk Land Disputes Tribunal Comprising of Mboto Kidai Ezekiel Kessio Paul Karop & 2 others Exparte Cheseret Arap Maina [2018] KEELC 204 (KLR)
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
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals over land sale contracts
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.
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.
Timeliness of the application for leave under Order 53 rule 2
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.
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.
Gazettement of Tribunal members
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.
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.
Alleged breach of natural justice
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.
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.
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.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.The applicant is awarded the costs of the application
- 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.