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 AllowedELCA Case No. 6 of 2018· [2019] KEELC 4152 (KLR)

Benjamin Machio Lutomia & another v Joseph Isimbishira Wandako [2019] KEELC 4152 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 March 2019
NMN.A. Matheka
2,341 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that Land Disputes Tribunals could never decide who owns registered land, voiding an order forcing a family farm to be subdivided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellants appealed to the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega against the decision of the Western Provincial Appeals Committee in appeal No. 106 of 1998, which had upheld the verdict of the Mumias Land Disputes Tribunal ordering that land parcel No. E. WANGA/ISONGO/364, registered in the name of the first appellant since 1971, be subdivided with three acres going to the respondent. The appellants raised seven grounds, the principal one being that the tribunal had no jurisdiction over a claim to ownership of land registered under the Registered Land Act Cap 300, and further that the claim was time-barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and that no fraud had been particularised or proved. The respondent maintained that the tribunal had jurisdiction and had reached a fair decision. The court, N.A. Matheka J, framed jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. Relying on section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed), which confines tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land and trespass, and applying the Court of Appeal's decision in M'Marete v Republic, the court held that the dispute was essentially one of ownership of registered land and therefore outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The decision of Masagu Ole Naumo, distinguishing between occupation claims and title determinations, was applied. The court found it unnecessary to examine the merits and allowed the appeal, quashing both the tribunal verdict and the Appeals Committee decision, with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal over ownership of registered land

Holding

The tribunal acted ultra vires its statutory mandate; its jurisdiction under section 3(1) covered only division/boundaries, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass, not title to registered land.

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act exhaustively lists civil disputes triable by tribunals. The claim before the Mumias Tribunal was essentially one of ownership of land registered under the Registered Land Act Cap 300, and the tribunal ordered subdivision of the parcel. Such disputes can only be tried by the High Court or a Resident Magistrate's court with jurisdiction. The tribunal meandered beyond its boundaries and acted in excess of jurisdiction.

p. 3
02

Whether the appeal should be allowed notwithstanding the outcome being not a prayer specifically sought

Holding

The decision of the tribunal, upheld by the Appeals Committee, was quashed in its entirety for want of jurisdiction.

Reasoning

Because both the tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Committee decided a dispute outside their jurisdiction, the proceedings violated the Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The court found no need to delve into the merits since the defect went to jurisdiction. The verdict adopting the tribunal award and ordering subdivision and transfer of 3 acres was quashed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Land Disputes Tribunals had no jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act to determine claims to title or ownership of registered land; such claims fall outside the enumerated categories of boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass.
  • Where a tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the court need not examine the merits of its proceedings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed
  2. 2.Decision/verdict of the Mumias Land Disputes Tribunal and Western Provincial Appeals Committee quashed
  3. 3.No orders as to costs
On appeal from
Western Provincial Appeals Committee
Appeal No. 106 of 1998
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal from the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act (No. 18 of 1990) (now repealed)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benjamin Machio Lutomia & another v Joseph Isimbishira Wandako [2019] KEELC 4152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELCA Case No. 6 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4152/eng@2019-03-19

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