Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Appeal Case No. 8 of 2018· [2019] KEELC 4103 (KLR)

Isaac Lisalitsa Alumasa v Paul Luteya Luvasia [2019] KEELC 4103 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 March 2019
NMN.A. Matheka
1,754 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

#

A Kenyan court threw out a land tribunal's decision because it had no power to decide who owns registered land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kakamega, per N.A. Matheka J, allowed an appeal against the decision of Hon. C. Kendagor RM adopting an award of the Shinyalu Land Disputes Tribunal in Kak MISC. Award No. 26 of 2011. The appellant raised three grounds: that the tribunal dealt with land of a deceased person whose succession cause was pending; that there were two conflicting tribunal decisions; and that the tribunal acted ultra vires by ordering cancellation of a subdivision and reversion of land to its original number. The respondent maintained that under sections 7 and rule 20 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act the magistrate was bound to adopt the tribunal's decision without review, and that the authentic decision was the one signed by three members, the conflicting two-member document having been disowned by the tribunal chairman. The court framed the jurisdiction of the tribunal as the preliminary issue. Applying section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, which confined tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass, and following the Court of Appeal's decision in M'Marete v Republic, the court held that the tribunal's ruling - which ordered land to revert to its originality and a parcel to be transferred to the claimant - was in substance a claim to ownership of registered land beyond the tribunal's mandate. The court found the proceedings fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and declined to examine the merits. The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's decision and the adopting award were quashed, with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal

Holding

The tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction by determining ownership/title to registered land, a matter not within section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act confined tribunals to disputes over boundaries, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The tribunal's ruling ordered land to revert to its originality and a parcel to be transferred to the claimant, which was in substance a claim to ownership of registered land. Following M'Marete v Republic, such a determination exceeded jurisdiction and rendered the proceedings a nullity, so the appeal succeeded without examining the merits.

p. 2
02

Adoption of conflicting tribunal decisions

Holding

Not determined, as the jurisdictional finding disposed of the appeal

Reasoning

The appellant argued the magistrate should have rejected two conflicting tribunal decisions. The respondent contended the magistrate was bound under section 7 to adopt the decision filed by the chairman, and that the decision signed by three members was authentic. The court did not rule on this ground separately since the tribunal lacked jurisdiction altogether.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Land Disputes Tribunals had no jurisdiction to determine claims to ownership or title to registered land; their mandate was limited to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass
  • Where a tribunal lacks jurisdiction, its proceedings are null and void ab initio and the merits need not be examined

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed
  2. 2.Decision/verdict of the Shinyalu Land Disputes Tribunal quashed
  3. 3.The award adopting the tribunal's decision set aside
  4. 4.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (No. 18 of 1990) (Repealed)Section 3(1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (No. 18 of 1990)Section 6(b)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (No. 18 of 1990)Section 7(1) and 7(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act

Cases cited (3)

  • Joseph Karobi Gicheru vs. Michael Gachoki Gicheru (2013) EKLR
    (2013) EKLR
  • M'Marete v Republic & 3 others
    Civil Appeal 259 of 2000 [2004] eKLR
  • Masagu Ole Naumo v Principal Magistrate Kajiado Law Courts & Another
    JR 370 of 2013 [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court (Kakamega)
Kak MISC. Award No. 26 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act from a magistrate's court decision adopting a tribunal award

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Isaac Lisalitsa Alumasa v Paul Luteya Luvasia [2019] KEELC 4103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Appeal Case No. 8 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4103/eng@2019-03-20

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