Republic v Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal Kajiado & another; Marau ole Meyoki Shokore (Interested Party) Ex Parte Kiriset ole Musei [2019] KEELC 1651 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to undo a land boundary decision, ruling that an undated court decree was a fixable mistake, not a fatal flaw.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Lands Disputes Tribunal over the dispute
The Tribunal had jurisdiction; the dispute was a boundary dispute within section 3(1)(a) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, not a dissolution-of-group-ranch matter
The court examined section 3(1)(a),(b),(c) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act conferring jurisdiction over boundary disputes. From the proceedings attached, the Tribunal was actually dealing with a boundary dispute between the Applicant and the Interested Party, which fell within its mandate. The Applicant's contention that the dispute emanated from dissolution of a group ranch and fell under the Land (Group Representatives) Act did not prevail on the material before the court.
Whether the adoption of the Award and the undated decree were tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
No. The Tribunal heard both parties and witnesses; the Magistrate adopted the Award as envisaged by statute without altering it; the omission of the date on the decree was a rectifiable mistake
Applying the Wednesbury classification from Council of Civil Service Unions, the court found no illegality since the Tribunal dealt with a boundary dispute within its mandate; no irrationality since the Magistrate merely adopted the Tribunal's findings; and no procedural impropriety as the proceedings indicated both parties and their witnesses were present. The undated decree was held a curable mistake whose omission of date does not affect the Award and its adoption.
Whether prohibition could issue against the District Land Surveyor
No, because the decision the Applicant sought to prohibit had already been made
The court held that the prayer for prohibition could not stand since prohibition is a preventive remedy directed at contemplated decisions, not completed ones. The resurvey decision pursuant to the decree had already been made, so the remedy sought was misconceived in nature.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review grounds are classified under illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
- Prohibition lies only to prevent a contemplated decision, not one already made
- An omission of the date in an extracted decree is a mistake rectifiable under the Civil Procedure Act and does not invalidate the adoption of the Tribunal's award
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 20th March, 2011 is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction (orders of certiorari and prohibition) under the law of judicial review; application premised on statutory statement and verifying affidavit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal Kajiado & another; Marau ole Meyoki Shokore (Interested Party) Ex Parte Kiriset ole Musei [2019] KEELC 1651 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 20th March, 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1651/eng@2019-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.