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 4/4/2009)· [2019] KEELC 1702 (KLR)

Caleb Osawo Ogolla v Land Disputes Tribunal Siaya & another; George Solomon Omondi (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 1702 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 September 2019
AOA. O. Ombwayo
603 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court quashed a Land Disputes Tribunal decision that cancelled a land title, confirming tribunals cannot cancel titles or decide succession matters.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Caleb Osano Ogolla, the Ex-parte Applicant, sought judicial review by way of a Notice of Motion dated 4 April 2009 for an order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Siaya District Land Disputes Tribunal in case number 105 of 2006 as adopted by the Siaya Principal Magistrate's Court in Land Disputes Tribunals case number 47 of 2008. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal's decision was made without jurisdiction and was therefore ultra vires and time barred. The interested party, George Solomon Omondi, opposed, asserting that the Tribunal had mandate under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act 1990 to cancel the Applicant's registration of the suit land, which he alleged had been fraudulently obtained, and that the proceedings were properly brought. The interested party also noted a pending challenge to the Applicant's grant of letters of administration in succession cause 369/2009. The court, Ombwayo J, held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was premised on Section 3 of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, which the Tribunal exceeded: it had no mandate to determine succession causes, to set aside a court determination, to determine ownership of land or right to title, or to cancel a title. The decision was accordingly a nullity, having been made ultra vires Section 3(1) of the Act. The court granted Certiorari quashing both the Tribunal's decision and the Magistrate's Court's adoption of it, and awarded costs of the judicial review to the Ex-parte Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal under the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act

Holding

The Tribunal acted without jurisdiction and ultra vires Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act in cancelling the Applicant's title registration and setting aside a court determination; its decision was a nullity.

Reasoning

The court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was premised on Section 3 of the repealed Act. The Tribunal exceeded that jurisdiction by determining a succession-related matter, setting aside a court determination, adjudicating ownership of land and right to title, and cancelling a title. Acts done without jurisdiction are ultra vires and a nullity, warranting quashing by Certiorari.

02

Remedy of Certiorari against an ultra vires tribunal decision adopted by the Magistrate's Court

Holding

Certiorari issued to quash both the Tribunal's decision in case 105 of 2006 and the Principal Magistrate's Court's adoption of it in Land Disputes Tribunals case 47 of 2008.

Reasoning

Since the Tribunal's decision was a nullity for want of jurisdiction, the adoption of that decision by the Principal Magistrate's Court could not stand. The court granted Certiorari to bring up and quash both the Tribunal's decision and the Magistrate's Court's decision adopting it as a judgment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Land Disputes Tribunals have no mandate to determine succession causes, which can only be determined by the High Court or a Magistrates' court with jurisdiction.
  • A Land Disputes Tribunal has no mandate to set aside a determination by a court of law, nor authority to determine ownership of land, right to title, or to cancel title.
  • A decision of a tribunal made ultra vires its statutory jurisdiction is a nullity liable to be quashed by Certiorari.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Siaya District Land Disputes Tribunal in case number 105 of 2006
  2. 2.An order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Siaya Principal Magistrate's Court in Land Disputes Tribunals case number 47 of 2008
  3. 3.Costs of the Judicial Review awarded to the Ex-parte Applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act (repealed)Section 3(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in respect of decisions of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act (repealed)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Caleb Osawo Ogolla v Land Disputes Tribunal Siaya & another; George Solomon Omondi (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 1702 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 4/4/2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1702/eng@2019-09-26

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