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

REPUBLIC v KIAMBU DISTRICT LAND TRIBUNAL & another Ex-parte SAMUEL NGUGI MUIRURI [2011] KEHC 2613 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 2613 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2613
Citation
[2011] KEHC 2613 (KLR)
Decided
13 May 2011
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial Review for CertiorariPostureEx parte application for judicial review and certiorariCoramD. MUSINGA
Holding

The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and its decision was sub judice, thus the ex parte applicant's application for certiorari is well merited and granted.

Facts

The ex parte applicant sought to quash a decision of the Kiambu District Land Disputes Tribunal and a subsequent judgment by the Principal Magistrate's Court Kikuyu, awarding 3 acres of land to Mary Ng'endo. The land was jointly owned by the applicant and his deceased mother Lillian Kabui Muiruri.

Issues

  1. Whether the Kiambu District Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the land dispute.
  2. Whether the tribunal's decision was sub judice due to the ongoing succession case in the High Court.

Reasoning

The tribunal's decision was not within its jurisdiction as it pertained to ownership of registered land, which is not within the tribunal's powers. The succession case in the High Court rendered the land dispute sub judice.

Outcome

The ex parte applicant's application for certiorari is granted.

Orders

  • The order of certiorari is granted to remove the decision of the 1st respondent into the High Court and quash the decision/award.
  • The costs of the application are to be provided for.

Remedies

  • The ex parte applicant's application for certiorari is granted.
  • The costs of the application are to be provided for.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act 1990
Cases cited (1)
  • BEATRICE M’MARETE v REPUBLIC & OTHERS ex parte JOHN GITONGA MBUI, Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2000
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case