Benson Ngungi Kironjo (suing on behalf of Mugwe Clan) v Joel Kithaka Maringa (being sued on behalf of Ngui Clan) [2019] KEELC 4726 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court voided tribal land tribunal awards over adjudication-section land and ordered restoration of original boundaries, awarding each clan only half of the disputed block.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction under section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act
The court had jurisdiction; the LAO's letters and oral evidence showed consent to seek legal redress in court
Although no specific written consent letter was produced, official letters from the LAO indicated consent would be granted for parties to seek legal redress if they failed to resolve the dispute amicably. The LAO testified the parties were allowed to come to court because the office could not resolve the dispute. A purposive rather than legalistic interpretation of section 30 meant its object was not defeated.
Ownership of Block 148
Mugwe clan is entitled to only about half of Block 148, being the portion originally comprising Block 135
The Director's letters showed the fraudulent creation of Block 148 by the Defendant's father, absorbing Block 136 (Ngui clan) and half of Block 135 (Mugwe clan), land contributed to the defunct Ruthari Ranch scheme. The anomaly was discovered in 1990. Restoration of original boundaries between Blocks 135 and 136 would secure Mugwe clan's share.
Validity of the LDT awards
Both awards (Siakago LDT Claim No. 330 of 2008 and LDT Claim No. 14 of 2008) were null and void ab initio
Section 2 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990 excluded land within adjudication sections from the Tribunals' jurisdiction. Block 148 fell within Gichiche Adjudication Section, so neither Tribunal had jurisdiction; void acts are nullities needing no order to set aside.
Legal principles established
#- Land Disputes Tribunals have no jurisdiction over land situated within an adjudication section declared under the Land Adjudication Act; awards made in respect of such land are null and void ab initio
- Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act (consent of the LAO to sue) is to be interpreted purposively; where the LAO allows parties to seek legal redress in court, the object of the section is not violated
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's clan is not entitled to the entire land comprised in Block 148 but to approximately one half thereof, to be ascertained by restoration of the original boundaries between Block 135 and Block 136 in Gichiche Adjudication Section
- 2.The LAO and the County Land Surveyor, Mbeere shall cause the restoration of the original boundaries between Blocks 135 and 136 within the next 90 days and file a report in court within that period
- 3.A declaration that the undated decision of the Tribunal in Siakago LDT Claim No. 330 of 2008 and all consequential orders and resultant decree are null and void
- 4.All the other prayers sought by the Plaintiff are declined
- 5.Each party shall bear his own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Benson Ngungi Kironjo (suing on behalf of Mugwe Clan) v Joel Kithaka Maringa (being sued on behalf of Ngui Clan) [2019] KEELC 4726 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). E.L.C. Case No. 219 of 2014 (Formerly Kerugoya ELC No. 523 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4726/eng@2019-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.