Republic v Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal at Embu & another; Mathuva Mukemba (Interested Party) Ex-parte Mbaika Kaviti Kyunguti alias Mbaika Kaviti Nyange [2020] KEELC 2073 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed land dispute tribunals cannot decide ownership of registered land—such decisions are void, even years later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Disputes Appeals Committee had jurisdiction over a dispute involving registered land and a contract of sale of land
The Committee acted without jurisdiction; its decision ordering subdivision of registered land was ultra vires and a nullity.
Section 3(1) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunals Act limited tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The dispute before the Committee concerned a sale transaction and ownership of registered land, which is the sole preserve of the courts. Relying on the Court of Appeal authorities cited, the court held the award went beyond the statutory jurisdiction and was a nullity ab initio.
Whether the Appeals Committee panel was properly constituted
The Committee was improperly constituted because it sat as a panel of three including the chairman but with only two members, contrary to section 9 of the Act.
Section 9 required the Appeals Committee to consist of a chairman and not less than five persons, sitting in a panel of three members for hearings. The record showed a chairman and two members, offending the mandatory provisions. The court agreed the Committee was incapable of passing a binding decision.
Whether the judicial review application was filed out of the six-month limitation period under section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act
The limitation period did not bar the application because the impugned decision was a nullity made without jurisdiction, and time could not run against a nullity.
Although the decision was dated 14 June 2001 and leave was sought in 2004, the court, following Stephen Kibowen vs. The Chief Magistrate's Court Nakuru, held that where the decision challenged is a nullity amounting to nothingness, time cannot run against it. The limitation objection therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal and Appeals Committee did not extend to claims of ownership of, or contracts of sale of, registered land.
- A decision of a tribunal made without jurisdiction is a nullity against which the six-month certiorari limitation period does not run.
- An Appeals Committee hearing conducted by a panel of fewer than three members is improperly constituted.
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the Land Disputes Appeals Committee made on 14/6/2001 is brought up and quashed
- 2.Costs are granted to the Ex-Parte Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Order LIII Rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Law Reform Act (Cap 26)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal at Embu & another; Mathuva Mukemba (Interested Party) Ex-parte Mbaika Kaviti Kyunguti alias Mbaika Kaviti Nyange [2020] KEELC 2073 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Misc. Judicial Review Appl. No. 5 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2073/eng@2020-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.