Republic v Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal & another Ex-parte Mutegi M’rumuri & 5 others [2018] KEELC 2736 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service of process and natural justice before the Tribunal
The Tribunal proceedings against the ex-parte applicants proceeded without service of any notice, rendering them contrary to the rules of natural justice and warranting quashing
The Tribunal record showed the objectors did not appear on 31/5/2011; on 7/6/2011 only one objector, Charles Ngaruni, appeared. Nothing on the record showed service of summons or hearing notice on the other objectors. The respondents filed no reply or proof of service. The only notice the applicants received was the 14/7/2011 hearing notice fixing the reading of the award, which came after the Tribunal had concluded its hearing and could not enable their participation.
Registration of the suit land under Cap. 300 and want of Tribunal jurisdiction
The court declined to find that the land was registered, as no certificate of official search or conclusive evidence of registration was exhibited
Although the applicants alleged the land was registered under the repealed Registered Land Act Cap. 300, they produced no certificate of official search from the Land Registrar to establish that registration. Without such evidence the court could not determine from their conclusory statements that the land had been registered, or in which registry. The ground of want of jurisdiction premised on registration therefore was not established.
Undefended judicial review applications
The court noted it must still scrutinize the claim despite the absence of responses from the respondent and interested party
The respondent and interested party filed no response or submissions, leaving the proceedings undefended. Citing the Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi decision, the court held that even in undefended cases the claimant must prove his claim to the required standard. The court nonetheless found the applicants' allegations weighty and proceeded to examine the Tribunal record.
Legal principles established
#- Even in undefended cases the claimant must prove his claim to the required standard to obtain the remedy sought
- It is a cardinal rule of natural justice that a person must be made aware of any case against him and given an opportunity to defend himself
- The verifying affidavit carries the proof of the facts alleged in the statement of facts in judicial review proceedings
- Proof of one ground of judicial review is sufficient to entitle the applicant to the remedy
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Certiorari issued to remove to the High Court and quash the decision of the Respondent made on 05/7/2011 in Tribunal Case No. 16 of 2011 in respect of LR. No. KIAMURI 'A'/1890
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction (originally High Court; record transferred to the Environment and Land Court for disposal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal & another Ex-parte Mutegi M’rumuri & 5 others [2018] KEELC 2736 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Tribunal Case No. 16 of 2011 (subject matter); Notice of Motion dated 20/12/2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2736/eng@2018-06-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.