Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedMeru ELC Judicial Review (Notice of Motion filed 28.11.2011)· [2019] KEELC 2471 (KLR)

Republic v Chairman Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal; Julius Miriti Sebastiano (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 2471 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 July 2019
LMLucy N. Mbugua
1,207 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court quashed a Land Disputes Tribunal award because the tribunal had no power to order someone's registered land to be excised and transferred.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte applicant, registered owner of land parcel Muthambi/Kandugu/308, moved the Court by Notice of Motion filed on 28 November 2011 seeking certiorari to quash the decision of the Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal No. 1 of 2011 (now Chuka PMCC LDT No. 44 of 2011), a declaration that the tribunal's proceedings and award were null and void ab-initio, and costs. The tribunal had awarded the interested party 0.5 acres out of the applicant's land; the interested party, a purchaser for value of the excised parcel Muthambi/Kandugu/1496 from Linus Ndubi M'Ribu (son of M'Ribu Mbuna, who had obtained the 0.50 acres in adjudication objection proceedings No. 213), defended the tribunal's jurisdiction. The respondent filed no response or submissions. The court isolated a single question: whether the tribunal had jurisdiction. Applying section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunals Act, the court found that the tribunal's final order directing registration of parcel 1496 under the interested party had the effect of hiving off 0.50 acres from parcel 308, exceeding the tribunal's statutory mandate. Following Oyoo v Wasonga (ELC JR No. 37 of 2017, Kisumu) and Republic v Kajiando North District Ngong Land Dispute Tribunal (2014) eKLR, the court held the award null and void for excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari issued, the proceedings and award were declared null and void ab-initio and cancelled, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to order excision and registration of 0.50 acres out of the applicant's registered parcel

Holding

The tribunal acted ultra vires and in excess of its jurisdiction; its award and proceedings were null and void ab-initio and were quashed

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunals Act confined tribunals to civil disputes over division of or boundaries to land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The tribunal's final order directed the district land registry to register parcel Muthambi/Kandugu/1496 under the interested party, effectively hiving off 0.50 acres from parcel 308. Such an order effecting transfer/registration of registered land was beyond the tribunal's statutory mandate, and relying on analogous authorities the court found the award void for excess of jurisdiction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A tribunal without jurisdiction over a dispute makes a decision that is null and void
  • A Land Disputes Tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction when it orders excision and registration of a portion of registered land, a matter beyond section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari issued to quash and prevent the respondent and interested party from implementing the decision made in Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal No. 1 of 2011 now in Chuka PMCC LDT No. 44 of 2011
  2. 2.The proceedings of the land disputes tribunal and award in LDT No. 1 of 2011 and in Chuka PMCC LDT No. 44 of 2011 declared null and void ab-initio and cancelled
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act (No. 18 of 1990, repealed)Section 3(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Jackson Omondi Oyoo (personal representative of the estate of Jane Aoko Oyoo – Deceased) Exparte v Wellington Wasonga – Interested party and Provincial Land Appeals Committee (1st respondent) and Principal Magistrate Siaya (2nd respondent)
    ELC JR No. 37 of 2017 Kisumu
  • Republic vs Kajiando North District Ngong Land Dispute Tribunal and SRM Kajiado
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (prerogative order of certiorari against a Land Disputes Tribunal award)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal; Julius Miriti Sebastiano (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 2471 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Meru ELC Judicial Review (Notice of Motion filed 28.11.2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2471/eng@2019-07-10

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