Chebaraa Farmers Company Limited v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another [2016] KEELRC 787 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court threw out a company's 962-acre land claim, ruling a Tribunal had no power to decide land ownership and the claim was filed too late.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the two companies jointly purchased the Keringet Farm land
The defendant company alone was the purchaser; the plaintiff was buying about 10,000 acres from the defendant, not contributing to a joint purchase
The court relied on minutes of the February 1975 and 29 August 1975 meetings and the letters of 1 and 4 April 1975 between the advocates, which showed Kirobon negotiated and purchased from Keringet Estates and merely agreed to resell up to a maximum of 10,000 acres to Chebaraa. Requests by Chebaraa for amalgamation or sharing the loan were rejected. No sale agreement evidencing joint purchase was produced.
Entitlement to acreage
The plaintiff was only ever purchasing 10,000 acres and was never entitled to a pro rata share based on its contribution; no evidence proved it received less than the 10,036 acres comprising L.R Nos. 546 and 549
The minutes and the 1 April 1975 letter from Kanti J. Patel Advocate showed the plaintiff was purchasing specific land from the defendant, not acquiring a share proportional to its money. The plaintiff produced no documentary evidence that it held only 9,456 acres, and even if so, that was within 'no more than 10,000 acres' as agreed. The claim for an additional 962.15 acres therefore had no basis.
Effect of the Land Disputes Tribunal award
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over a claim of entitlement to ownership of land; the award is null and void and cannot be affirmed
Section 3(3) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act limited Tribunals to disputes over division or boundaries of land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. A huge and complex claim over entitlement to land could only be heard by a superior court. The Tribunal's award of 962.15 acres, whether or not reversed on appeal, was a nullity and could not be given effect to.
Limitation
The claim is time barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The agreement or understanding between the parties was made latest in 1975, some 23 years before the Tribunal claim and 26 years before this suit. Even taking 1982, when meetings were still attempting resolution, as the year the dispute arose, the claim fell outside the 12-year limitation period for actions to recover land.
The interested party's claim for 40 acres
Disallowed as improperly brought within this suit; he must file a separate suit
The suit concerns a dispute between the two companies. The interested party, apparently a member and former director of the defendant, claimed 40 acres or Kshs. 28 Million compensation. The court held such a separate claim cannot be pushed into a suit between two other parties and determined on pleadings not framed for it.
Legal principles established
#- A Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain disputes over ownership of land; an award rendered without jurisdiction is null and void and cannot be upheld by the court.
- An action to recover land may not be brought after twelve years from when the right of action accrued, under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- A caveat alone does not establish a right over land.
Court orders
#- 1.Any claim tendered in this matter by the interested party is disallowed, not on merits, but because it cannot properly be determined in this case
- 2.The award of the Land Disputes Tribunal is declared null and void and of no effect; no party or any other person should proceed to give effect to it
- 3.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs
- 4.The counterclaim is allowed with costs: a declaration that the award of the Land Disputes Tribunal is null and void and a perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from land parcel L.R No. 545
- 5.If the caveat registered by the plaintiff over parcel L.R No. 545 still exists, it should be removed, as the plaintiff has not demonstrated any right over the parcel
- 6.Relief of a declaration that persons settled on L.R No. 545 are bona fide and that titles be issued to them is refused
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chebaraa Farmers Company Limited v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another [2016] KEELRC 787 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Nakuru High Court Civil Suit (ELC) – suit commenced by plaint on 3 April 2001, amended 21 May 2009 (further amended 17 March 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/787/eng@2016-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.