Brian Mubweka Ndeda & another v Crispinus Ndeda & 2 others [2020] KEELC 432 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Busia dismissed a family's attempt to overturn a Tribunal land award, confirming subdivided titles cannot be easily undone.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over land registered in the name of a deceased person
No such defect existed; the original parcel had been subdivided during the deceased's lifetime and the title closed, so the Tribunal did not deliberate on land registered in a deceased person's name
The official search showed the title deed to LR 2182 was closed on subdivision into new numbers 5049-5053. Searches showed resultant parcels registered to the Respondents in 1996, before the deceased's death in 1997. By 2008, LR 2182 no longer existed, so grounds 1 and 2 failed on the Appellants' own record.
Whether the Tribunal failed to follow customary law and history
The Tribunal could only deal with matters placed before it; the Appellants never sued the deceased who made the distribution, so the Tribunal could not apply his customary law of sharing
The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the Appellants had a share in the suit land. The Tribunal had no power to challenge a division already undertaken by the deceased. In any event, the Tribunal accommodated the Appellants by awarding them parcel 5053. The Appellants also never pleaded the mode of distribution that was allegedly ignored.
Whether the Tribunal's award was vague and incapable of implementation
The award, once adopted as a court order and decree, was executable; the Appellants never explained any inability to execute
The Respondents showed the first Respondent had commenced succession proceedings in Succession Cause No. 60 of 2001 to have parcel 5053 transferred to the Appellants. Once the award was adopted as a decree, the Appellants were at liberty to execute but did not elaborate why they could not.
Whether the Tribunal found that the Respondents had proved ownership of LR 2182
The impugned finding merely restated existing facts about issuance of resultant titles and was not a finding of ownership of the original parcel
The Tribunal's finding (b) simply restated that resultant titles from the subdivision of 2182 had been issued, as confirmed by the searches at pages 40-48 of the record. In any case, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel the resulting subdivision titles, so no finding of ownership of 2182 was made against the Appellants.
Legal principles established
#- A Land Disputes Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to civil disputes concerning division of or boundaries to land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass to land under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act
- Where a proprietor subdivided and distributed land during his lifetime, resulting titles extinguish the original parcel, and a Tribunal cannot reopen or challenge that division nor follow customs of a deceased who was never party to the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal be and is hereby dismissed for want of merit
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the Respondents
- On appeal from
- Matayos Land Disputes Tribunal (award adopted in Busia CMCC No. 26 of 2012)
- Land Case No. 1 of 2008 / Busia CMCC No. 26 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal against a Land Disputes Tribunal award adopted as an order of the subordinate court, pursuant to the Land Disputes Tribunal Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Brian Mubweka Ndeda & another v Crispinus Ndeda & 2 others [2020] KEELC 432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/432/eng@2020-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.