Republic v Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal & 4 others Exparte M’kungania S/O Marete [2018] KEELC 1996 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court ruled a Land Disputes Tribunal had no power to subdivide registered land, but dismissed the owner's case over a technical filing error.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal over registered land
The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction by entertaining and ordering the subdivision of registered land, rendering its award a nullity
Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act confines tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land and trespass. The impugned decision acknowledged the parcel was registered in the applicant's name yet ordered its subdivision among family members. Following Beatrice M'Marete and Jotham Amunavi, a claim whose implementation would entail rectifying or cancelling titles is a claim to ownership, beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Whether absence of a certiorari prayer defeats a prohibition prayer
The motion is not defective for lack of a certiorari prayer; prohibition can stand alone where a future event is sought to be prevented
The interested parties argued prohibition cannot issue against an order already made without certiorari. The court held prohibition is not conjoined at the hip with certiorari; it suffices that there is a future event capable of being prohibited, namely implementation of the Tribunal's decision.
Whether prohibition could issue against the parties currently enjoined
Prohibition could not issue because it was sought against parties not properly within the proposed relief in the statutory statement
The Tribunal does not implement its own decision, and the interested parties were not included in the proposed relief laid out in the statutory statement, contrary to Order 53 rule 4 which confines relief to that set out in the statement. No implementing authority was therefore properly before the court. However, following John Kasimu Kilatya, non-joinder of the implementing court is not fatal where the award is a nullity.
Legal principles established
#- A Land Disputes Tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction where it determines a dispute over registered land whose implementation would entail rectifying or cancelling titles; such an award is a nullity
- A prayer for prohibition can stand on its own without a prayer for certiorari where there is a future event sought to be prohibited
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 12/11/2011
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order 53 Rules 3(1), (2), (3) and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal & 4 others Exparte M’kungania S/O Marete [2018] KEELC 1996 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Misc. Application No. 72 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1996/eng@2018-08-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.