Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedMeru CMCC LDT No. 19 of 2006 (Judicial Review Chamber Summons dated 14th September 2006; Notice of Motion dated 18th October 2006)· [2018] KEELC 1891 (KLR)

Republic v District Commissioner (As Chairman Meru Central Land Disputes Tribunal), Abothuguchi Division & Margaret Marete Exparte Mwitaiti Mugwika [2018] KEELC 1891 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 June 2018
ECE. Cherono
1,328 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a Meru land tribunal's award because the tribunal had no legal power to decide land ownership.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicant sought leave and substantive orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash and bar implementation of the award of the Land Disputes Tribunal Meru Central District in LDT Case No. 98 of 2005, which affected land parcel Abothuguchi/Makandune/107 registered in the applicant's name. Leave was granted by the duty court and operated as a stay; the substantive motion was filed on 19/10/2006. The applicant contended that the tribunal exceeded its statutory mandate under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 (repealed) by determining land ownership, that the interested party's alleged 1976 purchase was time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act, and that the interested party lacked locus standi for suing on behalf of her deceased husband without a grant. The interested party opposed, arguing the motion was incompetent for not invoking the Law Reform Act and was filed outside six months of the award. The respondents conceded. The court held the tribunal had purported to determine contract and land ownership, matters beyond its jurisdiction, rendering the award null and void; a void award is not subject to the six-month limitation in Order LIII rule 2 CPR. The cited authority of Kimanzi Misoo v David Mulwa Muthusi was distinguished. The motion was allowed: certiorari quashed the tribunal's proceedings and award, and prohibition issued restraining the respondents from implementing the award, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals

Holding

The tribunal acted ultra vires by determining contract and land ownership, matters outside section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990; its award was null and void

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the repealed Act confined tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The tribunal purported to subdivide registered land and determine ownership and contract, which required the court's jurisdiction. A decision without jurisdiction is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

p. 3
02

Limitation and competence of the judicial review motion

Holding

The six-month limitation under Order LIII rule 2 CPR did not apply because the award was a nullity; the motion was not incompetent despite the Law Reform Act not being cited

Reasoning

Because the tribunal's award was issued without jurisdiction, it could not attract the six-month limitation period, and no leave for extension of time was needed. The authority cited by the interested party was distinguishable because in that case the decision-maker had jurisdiction.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An award issued by a tribunal without jurisdiction is null and void and is not subject to the six-month limitation period under Order LIII rule 2 CPR

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari issued to bring before the court the proceedings and award of the land disputes tribunal, Meru Central District, LDT case no. 98 of 2005, for purposes of quashing
  2. 2.An order of prohibition issued prohibiting the 1st and 2nd respondents from implementing the award of the land disputes tribunal Meru Central District in LDT case no. 98 of 2005 touching on land parcel Abothuguchi/Makandune/107
  3. 3.Each party to bear his own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 (repealed)section 3(1)
  • Limitation of Actions ActCap 22 Laws of Kenya
  • Law Reform ActCap 26 Laws of Kenya, Orders 8 and 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder LIII rules 2, 3(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kimanzi Misoo vs David Mulwa Muthusi
    CA no. 233 of 1996 (Nairobi), unreported
Jurisdiction invoked
Order LIII Civil Procedure Rules read with Order 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) Laws of Kenya (judicial review supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

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, "Republic v District Commissioner (As Chairman Meru Central Land Disputes Tribunal), Abothuguchi Division & Margaret Marete Exparte Mwitaiti Mugwika [2018] KEELC 1891 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Meru CMCC LDT No. 19 of 2006 (Judicial Review Chamber Summons dated 14th September 2006; Notice of Motion dated 18th October 2006). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1891/eng@2018-06-14

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