Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedHigh Court Judicial Review Application No. 50 of 2008· [2018] KEELC 368 (KLR)

Haron Theuri Ngunyi v Kinangop Division Land Dispute Tribunal Nyandarua & 6 others [2018] KEELC 368 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
7 December 2018
DOD. O. Ohungo
1,728 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed that land dispute tribunals cannot decide who owns registered land, and quashed a tribunal's order transferring an acre.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance judicial review application, originally filed as High Court Judicial Review Application No. 50 of 2008 and transferred to Nakuru, in which the ex parte applicant, the registered proprietor of Nyandarua/Ol'aragwai/1407, sought certiorari to quash the proceedings and award of the Kinangop Division Land Dispute Tribunal in Cause No. 70/2006 and consequential orders. The tribunal had on 16th February 2007 ordered him to transfer one acre to Ol'aragwai Farmers Co-operative Society and directed the District Land Registrar to issue a title deed; the award was adopted and a decree issued on 18th March 2008 in Principal Magistrates Court Land Dispute No. 2 of 2008 (Nyahururu). The 2nd to 7th respondents supported the tribunal's findings, contending the purchase consideration had been paid in full, but the court noted their arguments went to the merits rather than the process. Holding that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process, the court framed two issues: whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, and whether certiorari was merited. Applying section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990, the court found tribunals could not determine ownership of registered land and that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, rendering its decision and the adopting decree nullities. Certiorari issued quashing both the tribunal decision and the magistrate's decree, with costs to the ex parte applicant. Judgment delivered by D. O. Ohungo, J, on 7th December 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction over ownership of registered land

Holding

The tribunal lacked jurisdiction; section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act confined tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass, not title to registered land.

Reasoning

The suit property is registered land under a title deed issued under the Registered Land Act. Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act 1990 enumerated only three categories of disputes. Determination of ownership of registered land falls outside them. By purporting to order transfer of an acre of the registered parcel, the tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction, rendering its decision and the resulting decree nullities.

p. 2
02

Whether certiorari should issue to quash the tribunal decision and the adopting magistrate's decree

Holding

Certiorari issued because the decision was made in excess of jurisdiction; the consequential decree adopted in the magistrates' court was likewise quashed.

Reasoning

Relying on the Gathenji Njoroge principles, certiorari will issue where a decision is made without or in excess of jurisdiction or in breach of natural justice. Since the tribunal's award was a nullity, every resulting proceeding, including the decree issued in Principal Magistrates Court Land Dispute No. 2 of 2008, was also a nullity and fell to be quashed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Land dispute tribunals did not have jurisdiction to determine ownership of registered land; a tribunal exceeding that jurisdiction renders its proceedings and decision null and void
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the dispute

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari issued removing into the court and quashing the proceedings and the decision delivered on 16th February 2007 in North Kinangop Tribunal Case No. 70 of 2006 as well as the decree issued on 18th March 2008 in Principal Magistrates Court Land Dispute No. 2 of 2008 (Nyahururu)
  2. 2.Costs of the case awarded to the ex parte applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990Sections 3(1), 4
  • Environment and Land Court Act, 2011Section 31
  • Registered Land Actnull (repeated)

Cases cited (3)

  • Republic v Chairman Amagoro Land Disputes Tribunal & another Ex-parte Paul Mafwabi Wanyama
    [2014] eKLR
  • Joseph Malakwen Lelei & another v Rift Valley Land Disputes Appeals Committee & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex-Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others
    [1997] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Order 53 (leave granted 10th November 2008); Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990, section 3(1)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Haron Theuri Ngunyi v Kinangop Division Land Dispute Tribunal Nyandarua & 6 others [2018] KEELC 368 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). High Court Judicial Review Application No. 50 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/368/eng@2018-12-07

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