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 Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2011, leave granted 18th October 2011)· [2019] KEELC 3743 (KLR)

Rose Wambui Wanyoike v Land Dispute Tribunal Kakuzi & another; Mwea Mwathe & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 3743 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya at Thika
5 April 2019
LGL. Gacheru
1,843 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court confirmed that Kenyan Land Disputes Tribunals cannot decide ownership or title of registered land, and quashed an award doing exactly that.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant, Rose Wambui Wanyoike, the registered proprietor of LR. Kakuzi/Kirimiri/Block 9/740 (title issued 10th April 2002), sought judicial review orders of Certiorari and Prohibition under leave granted on 18th October 2011. She challenged the award of the Kakuzi Land Disputes Tribunal in LDT No.22/011/7, in which the Tribunal ordered that her land be taken and partitioned equally between the Interested Parties, and the subsequent reading of that award in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Thika as LDT Case No.67 of 2011, confirmation of which was pending. Her case was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act to determine questions of ownership of and title to registered land. Neither the Respondents nor the Interested Parties entered appearance, and the application was unopposed. Relying on the Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' and Geofrey Gathenji Njoroge authorities, L. Gacheru J held that jurisdiction is everything; that disputes over registered land fall outside the Tribunal's statutory remit; that the Tribunal therefore exceeded its jurisdiction and its award was null, void and ultra vires; and that the Magistrate's Court had no power to read or confirm a void award. The Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2011 was allowed entirely in terms of prayers 1 and 2, with costs to the Ex-parte Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Kakuzi District Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine ownership of and title to registered land

Holding

The Tribunal had no such jurisdiction; it exceeded its jurisdiction and its award was null and void and ultra vires

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act confines Tribunals to boundaries of land held in common, claims to occupy or work on land, and trespass. The Tribunal arbitrated a dispute relating to title of registered land holding that the suit land was allocated to the Interested Parties and should be partitioned equally. Because the Applicant held a title deed issued in 2002, the dispute was over registered land, which is outside the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction.

p. 3
02

Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court at Thika could validly adopt or confirm the Tribunal's award

Holding

The Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction to read or confirm an award that was null and void for want of jurisdiction

Reasoning

Since the Tribunal's award was null and void, the confirmation proceedings before the Chief Magistrate's Court had no lawful foundation. Prohibition was therefore available to stop further proceedings in LDT Case No.67 of 2011, and Certiorari was available to quash the award already made.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Land Disputes Tribunals have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes concerning ownership of or title to registered land
  • An award made without jurisdiction is null and void, and a subordinate court has no jurisdiction to read or confirm such an award

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Order of Prohibition prohibiting the Chief Magistrates Court at Thika from hearing or entertaining any further proceedings or issuing any further orders in LDT Case No.67 of 2011 Thika, and prohibiting the Kakuzi Land Disputes Tribunal from entertaining similar proceedings affecting title to land and ownership of LR. Kakuzi/Kirimiri/Block 9/740
  2. 2.Order of Certiorari to bring to the High Court and quash the proceedings and award of the Kakuzi Land Disputes Tribunal in respect of LR. Kakuzi/Kirimiri/Block 9/740, being the award read on 3rd October 2011 in LDT Case No.67 of 2011 at Thika
  3. 3.Costs of the application to the Ex-parte Applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal ActSection 3(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Gibson Sengete Matolo vs Eastern Provincial Land Disputes Committee & 3 Others
    HCC Misc.Appl No.33 of 2003
  • In the matter of Asman Maloba Wepukhulu & Another vs Francis Wakwabubi
    Kisumu Court of Appeal No.157 of 2001
  • OJSC Power Machines Ltd, Trans Century Ltd and Civicon Ltd (Consortium) vs Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Kenya & 2 Others
    NRB CA 28 of 2016 (2017) eKLR
  • Kenya National Examination Council vs R, Exparte Geofrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others
    (1997) eKLR
  • Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) 1 KLR
On appeal from
Kakuzi Land Disputes Tribunal / Chief Magistrate's Court at Thika (LDT Case No.67 of 2011)
LDT No.22/011/7, Kakuzi Land Disputes Tribunal; adopted as LDT Case No.67 of 2011, Thika
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under leave granted to apply for orders of Certiorari and Prohibition, pursuant to the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990 (Section 3(1))

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

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, "Rose Wambui Wanyoike v Land Dispute Tribunal Kakuzi & another; Mwea Mwathe & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 3743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2011, leave granted 18th October 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3743/eng@2019-04-05

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