Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedJudicial Review Application (Notice of Motion filed 21/12/2009)· [2018] KEELC 1365 (KLR)

Republic v Chairman Meru Central District Land Dispute Tribunal & 6 others Exparte Salacious Kaburu Kirigia & another [2018] KEELC 1365 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
15 October 2018
960 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed that Land Disputes Tribunals cannot decide who owns land, and any award they make on ownership is void.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Exparte Applicants, registered owners of L.R No. Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/1283 & 1282, obtained leave on 10/12/2009 to apply for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash the proceedings and award of the Meru Land District Disputes Tribunal in LDT No. 21 of 2009, which had been adopted via Meru CMCC Case No. 43 of 2009 on 29/10/2009. The interested parties had claimed beneficial shares in the suit lands, and the tribunal awarded the land to them. The Applicants argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over land ownership, acted ultra vires the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, considered extraneous matters, and purported to cancel legitimate title deeds. J.G. Kemei J found the undisputed facts to be that the Applicants were the registered owners and the tribunal had awarded the land to the interested parties. Section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act confines tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass; ownership is outside their mandate. Relying on Samuel Kamau Macharia, Jonathan Amunavi, Sir Ali Bin Salim and Macfoy, the court held that a decision made without jurisdiction is ultra vires and a nullity, void and not merely voidable, and that adoption of a void award is itself a nullity. The Notice of Motion was allowed, certiorari issued quashing the tribunal's award dated 22/6/2011, with costs to the Exparte Applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals over land ownership

Holding

The tribunal, limited under section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass, had no jurisdiction to determine ownership of land or cancel title deeds.

Reasoning

Section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act confines tribunals to civil disputes over boundaries, occupation or working of land, and trespass. By venturing into ownership and purporting to cancel registered titles, the tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate. Determining ownership is a matter reserved to the High Court. Acting without jurisdiction renders the decision ultra vires and a nullity.

p. 2
02

Effect of adoption of a void award by the court

Holding

Adoption of a null award does not cure the nullity; the adopted award remains void.

Reasoning

Relying on Sir Ali Bin Salim and Macfoy, the court held that a decision rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio, not merely voidable, and may be declared void by any court in which it is presented. Consequently, the adoption of the tribunal's award in Meru CMCC No. 43 of 2009 was itself a nullity notwithstanding the adoption.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A tribunal can only exercise jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or written law; a decision made without jurisdiction is a nullity
  • A void act is a nullity that needs no court order to set it aside, and its nullity infects any subsequent adoption

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion be and is hereby allowed
  2. 2.An order of certiorari to quash the award dated 22/6/2011 made by Meru Land Disputes Tribunal in LDT No 21 of 2009
  3. 3.Costs of the application in favour of the Exparte Applicants
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 and order of certiorari (leave granted 10/12/2009)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Meru Central District Land Dispute Tribunal & 6 others Exparte Salacious Kaburu Kirigia & another [2018] KEELC 1365 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion filed 21/12/2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1365/eng@2018-10-15

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