SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

James Kariko Bacha & 2 others v Land Disputes Tribunal Kiambu West & another [2019] KECA 174 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 174 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
174
Citation
[2019] KECA 174 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court's ruling and order dismissing an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedingsCoramASIKE-MAKHANDIA, J. MOHAMMED, J. OTIENO-ODEK
Holding

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, as the learned Judge was right in rejecting the application on the grounds of jurisdiction and the material placed before him was not sufficient to persuade him to exercise his discretion.

Facts

There was a land dispute between the appellants and Hotensiah, the sister-in-law of the appellants. The Land Disputes Tribunal, Kiambu West allocated one acre of the suit land to Hotensiah, who was the deceased's daughter-in-law.

Issues

  1. Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to handle the dispute
  2. Whether the appellants had exhausted their statutory appeal rights

Reasoning

The appellate process set out in the Land Disputes Tribunal Act was best suited to determine the dispute. The Judge was right in rejecting the application on the grounds of jurisdiction and the material was not sufficient to persuade him to exercise his discretion.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Law Reform Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Republic v National Environment Management Authority
  • Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 others v Darasa Investments Limited
  • Coffee Board of Kenya vs. Thika Coffee Mills Limited & 2 Others
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case