Republic v Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal & another Ex-parte Patricia Taaka Wandera [2018] KEELC 2316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court threw out a land tribunal's order because tribunals can only do what the law explicitly allows them to do.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Tribunal's jurisdiction to order specific performance
The tribunal acted ultra vires its statutory jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act by ordering specific performance
Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act (Cap 303A) confined tribunals to disputes over division or boundaries of land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. Ordering specific performance of a land sale agreement fell outside these categories. Tribunals are creatures of statute with no inherent powers, so the tribunal could not exceed its mandate.
Proper constitution of the tribunal
A tribunal of six members was improperly constituted since the Act permitted only three or five members including the chairman
Section 4 of the Act provided for a chairman and either two or four elders, meaning the tribunal could only sit as three or five members. Here six members sat and only three signed the decision, contrary to the statutory composition, further vitiating the tribunal's decision.
Effect of failure to obtain Land Control Board consent
Where application for consent is not made within six months, the land transaction becomes void
Under section 8(1) of the Land Control Act, application for consent must be made to the Land Control Board within six months of making the agreement. The parties never applied, and the court accepted that the transaction thereby became void, leaving the purchaser entitled only to a refund rather than specific performance.
Legal principles established
#- A Land Disputes Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the matters enumerated in section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act and it has no power to order specific performance
- A tribunal has no inherent powers and cannot go beyond what the applicable statute provides
- A Land Disputes Tribunal could comprise only 3 or 5 members including the chairman, not 6
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the ex-parte Applicant in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion dated 30/10/2012
- 2.Observation that it would be in the best interest of the Interested Party to take her dispute to the appropriate forum
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals), proceedings brought after leave granted on 10/10/2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Funyula Land Disputes Tribunal & another Ex-parte Patricia Taaka Wandera [2018] KEELC 2316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review No. 26 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2316/eng@2018-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.