Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Republic v Land Dispute Tribunal Njoro

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Judicial Review 34 of 2009 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MONICA CHEPKORIR MAINA OF CERTIORARI & PROHIBITION AND IN THE MATTER OF NAKURU CMC LAND DISPUTE NO. 43 OF 2008 AND IN THE MATTER OF REGISTERED LAND ACT CAP 300 LAWS OF KENYA BETWEEN REPUBLIC…………………………………..…….APPLICANT AND LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL NJORO………………….RESPONDENT AND GLADYS CHEPKEMOI MAINA……...…INTERESTED PARTY RULING This is a judicial review application brought under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8 the Law Reform Act. It seeks an order of certiorari to bring to this court and quash the proceedings and decision of Njoro Land Dispute Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 27th November 2008 on the grounds that no claim whatsoever capable of giving raise to an award was presented before it and that as the dispute related to registered land the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Though served, neither the respondent nor the interested party filed any papers in opposition to the application. Having perused the record I agree with Mrs Wanderi for the ex-parte applicant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine as it purported to do the issue of ownership of the property known as Title Njoro/Ngata Block 5/108 and to order its subdivision into three portions. Consequently I allow this application and quash the Tribunal’s decision of 27 th November 2008. The application having not been opposed by the respondent or the interested party, I make no order as to costs. DATED and delivered this 25th day of January, 2010.

page 1 of 2

D. K. MARAGA JUDGE.

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.