Republic v Busia Municipality Land Disputes Tribunal & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1802 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Busia quashed a Land Disputes Tribunal award because the tribunal had no power to decide who owns land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal
The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by conferring ownership rights over the disputed parcels, which is beyond the powers conferred by section 3 of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act
Section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act limited tribunals to matters of trespass, claims to work or occupy land, and boundary disputes. Determination of ownership of land fell outside these powers. To the extent the tribunal purported to confer ownership rights on the Interested Party, it acted without jurisdiction, warranting quashing of its award.
Capacity of the Interested Party
A widow claiming as representative of her late husband's estate required letters of administration; without a grant she lacked capacity to mount the claim
Where a party urges a claim before a tribunal as representative of a deceased's estate, succession law requires a grant of letters of administration. Absent such a grant, the claimant could not prosecute the claim before any legal forum. The Interested Party did not produce a grant, undermining the tribunal proceedings.
Bias of a tribunal member
The presence of a tribunal member who was the Interested Party's son-in-law created a real possibility of bias supporting judicial review
One tribunal member, Patrick Mullah, was the son-in-law of the Interested Party. The court found that the possibility of bias was real, and that the Exparte Applicants were entitled to apprehend real or perceived miscarriage of justice, an additional ground warranting the quashing order.
Scope of judicial review
Judicial review is concerned with legality of procedure and compliance with substantive law, not the merits of the decision challenged
In judicial review the court does not examine the merits of the impugned decision but only its legality of procedure and compliance with substantive law. The Interested Party's focus on merits was misplaced; her remedy on merits lies in the appropriate forum.
Legal principles established
#- Land Disputes Tribunals under the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act had no mandate to decide questions of land ownership; decisions conferring ownership rights exceed jurisdiction
- A claimant prosecuting a claim as representative of a deceased's estate must hold the requisite grant from succession proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari issued calling into the Environment and Land Court the proceedings and award of the Busia Municipality Land Disputes Tribunal adopted as judgment in Busia PM LD No. 13 of 2011 and quashing the same
- 2.Each side to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction over subordinate tribunals and courts; orders of certiorari under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Busia Municipality Land Disputes Tribunal & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1802 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review No. 3 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1802/eng@2018-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.