Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedJR ELC Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 20/7/2006 (Kitale)· [2021] KEELC 3773 (KLR)

Republic v Chepareria Land Disputes Tribunal Comprising of: Joseph Milliongar & another ; Ex parte: Matayo Kidopus;Lopuonyang Cheleken (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 3773 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
31 March 2021
2,845 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a land tribunal's decision awarding someone part of a registered plot because tribunals cannot award registered land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicant sought judicial review orders of certiorari under Section 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order LIII Rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to quash the decision of the Chepareria Land Disputes Tribunal, read and adopted as a judgment of the Kitale Principal Magistrate's Court in Land Case No. 54 of 2005. The tribunal had ordered that the interested party be given a portion of the applicant's land, West Pokot/Chepareria/841, registered under the Registered Land Act, and awarded costs. The applicant contended the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over registered land and condemned him unheard. The court framed five issues: jurisdiction, natural justice, exhaustion of alternative remedies, whether to quash, and costs. On jurisdiction, it held that Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act conferred only limited jurisdiction, and following the Court of Appeal in M'Marete, a tribunal could not award parcels of registered land; jurisdiction is everything and a body without it must down tools. On natural justice, the court found no affidavit evidence of service of tribunal summons on the applicant; the respondents' and interested party's submissions could not substitute for such evidence, so the applicant was condemned unheard contrary to Article 50(1) of the Constitution. On exhaustion, applying Kenya Revenue Authority v Darasa Investments and the NEMA case, the court held that alternative remedies were no bar where the applicant raised questions of jurisdiction and procedure properly belonging to judicial review. The notice of motion was allowed in terms of prayer 1, and an order of certiorari issued quashing the tribunal's decision. No costs order appears in the disposition.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Chepareria Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction over land registered under the Registered Land Act

Holding

The tribunal acted beyond its powers in awarding a portion of registered land and in ordering subdivision and costs.

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Act granted only limited jurisdiction over boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. The suit land was registered under the Registered Land Act, and the register was opened before the tribunal proceedings. Following the Court of Appeal in M'Marete, the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, and a body without jurisdiction has no power to make one more step.

p. 2
02

Whether the tribunal violated the rules of natural justice by condemning the applicant unheard

Holding

Natural justice was violated; no service of tribunal summons was proved by affidavit evidence.

Reasoning

Article 50(1) guarantees every party a fair hearing. The only service proved related to the magistrate's court adoption, not tribunal summons. No replying affidavit exhibited the served summons; the parties' submissions could not substitute for affidavit evidence. The applicant was therefore unable to present his defence before the tribunal.

p. 3
03

Whether failure to exhaust the statutory appeal to the provincial appeals committee barred the judicial review application

Holding

No; alternative remedies did not bar the judicial review because the applicant raised questions of jurisdiction and procedure proper for the High Court.

Reasoning

Applying the KRA v Darasa Investments and NEMA tests, the dispute concerned the decision-making process (jurisdiction and procedure) rather than merits, making judicial review the more suitable forum. Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act also permits exemption from exhausting alternative remedies in the interest of justice.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A tribunal or quasi-judicial body must act within its statutory jurisdiction; jurisdiction is granted by statute or constitution.
  • A land disputes tribunal could not adjudicate over or award parcels of land registered under the Registered Land Act.
  • Availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar to judicial review proceedings.
  • Evidence of service of summons must be proved by affidavit; mere submissions cannot substitute for affidavit evidence.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari removing into the court and quashing the decision of the Chepareria Land Disputes Tribunal which was read and adopted as the judgment of the court in Kitale SPMC's Land Case No 54 of 2005
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under Section 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26) and Order LIII Rules 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chepareria Land Disputes Tribunal Comprising of: Joseph Milliongar & another ; Ex parte: Matayo Kidopus;Lopuonyang Cheleken (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 3773 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). JR ELC Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 20/7/2006 (Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3773/eng@2021-03-31

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