Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedJudicial Review Notice of Motion dated 30/6/2009 (Meru)· [2018] KEELC 1993 (KLR)

Republic v Chairman Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal & 2 others Ex Parte Gerald Rimberia M”Riria & another [2018] KEELC 1993 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 August 2018
MNMwangi Njoroge
2,177 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court quashed a Land Disputes Tribunal's decision because tribunals cannot cancel titles or redistribute registered land—only the High Court can decide ownership disputes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd ex-parte applicant sought judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition against the award of the Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal of 22/4/2009 in Tribunal Case No 67 of 2008, by which the Tribunal redistributed the family's registered land parcels, including cancelling the title of parcel Abothuguchi/Katheri/2421 held by the 2nd ex-parte applicant. The 1st ex-parte applicant died during the proceedings and his case abated. The interested parties opposed, contending the Tribunal acted within jurisdiction and that the applicants should have appealed to the Provincial Appeals Committee. The court framed the single issue as whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction. Relying on Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act and the Court of Appeal decisions in Jotham Amunavi and M'Marete, the court held that the Tribunal, a creature of statute, had no power to determine disputes affecting ownership, title or registration of land registered under the Registered Land Act. The Tribunal's directives delved into ownership and registration and, if implemented, would cancel the 2nd ex-parte applicant's title. The award was therefore ultra vires, and the decree of the magistrate's court adopting it was a nullity ab initio. The court granted certiorari quashing the decision and prohibition against its implementation, with costs to the respondent and interested parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunals over registered land

Holding

The Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction by cancelling a title and directing transfers of registered land; the award and the resulting magistrate's court decree are nullities.

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act confines tribunals to disputes over division or boundaries of land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The Tribunal's award purported to cancel a title and redistribute registered parcels among family members, which affects ownership and registration. Following the Court of Appeal in Amunavi and other authorities, such matters are reserved to the High Court or Resident Magistrate's Court. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, cannot confer jurisdiction on itself, and its award was liable to be quashed.

p. 2
02

Effect of the Tribunal award on title and the decree of the magistrate's court

Holding

The decree emanating from the magistrate's court that adopted and read the Tribunal's award is a nullity ab initio.

Reasoning

The exhibits (green cards) established that the parcels were registered land and that the Tribunal's directives delved into ownership and registration. Since the award was ultra vires the Tribunal's statutory mandate, the decree issued under Meru CMCC LDT No 19 of 2009 adopting it could not stand and was a nullity from the outset.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A Land Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act to determine disputes touching ownership, title or registration of land registered under the Registered Land Act; such a decision is a nullity liable to be quashed by certiorari.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari removing to the court and quashing the decision of the respondent dated 29/3/2011
  2. 2.An order of prohibition prohibiting the respondent and the interested parties from implementing the decision of the Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal made on 22/4/2009 in Tribunal Case No 67 of 2008
  3. 3.The respondent and the interested parties to bear the costs of the proceedings

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal ActSection 3(1)
  • Registered Land ActSection 159 (referred to in quoted authority)

Cases cited (4)

  • M'Muthaura M'Mukua Vs Senior Resident Magistrate And 2 Others
    Meru Misc Appl. 75 of 2006
  • Jotham Amunavi Vs Chairman Sabatia Division Land Disputes Tribunal
    Kisumu Civil Appeal No 256 of 2002
  • M'Marete vs. Republic & 3 Others
    [2004] eKLR, Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2000
  • Republic -Vs- Borabu District Land Disputes Tribunal & Another Ex-Parte Jemima Kemunto Masare
    [2010] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under the Law Reform Act (order of certiorari and prohibition) over the decision of the Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal & 2 others Ex Parte Gerald Rimberia M”Riria & another [2018] KEELC 1993 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 30/6/2009 (Meru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1993/eng@2018-08-29

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