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

REPUBLIC V CHAIRMAN MACHAKOS DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL & ANOTHER EXPARTE PAUL MBINDYO KILOVE [2012] KEHC 1927 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1927 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1927
Citation
[2012] KEHC 1927 (KLR)
Decided
9 October 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureEx parte application for orders of certiorari and prohibitionCoramGeorge Dulu
Holding

The application is allowed, and prayers 2 and 3 are granted. The costs will be to the applicant from the interested party and the respondents jointly and severally.

Facts

The ex parte applicant, Mwaula Mbindyo Kilove, sought to quash an award made by the Machakos District Land Disputes Tribunal and prohibit the respondents and interested party from implementing the award. The award was based on a case number 44 of 2004, which was forwarded to the ex parte applicant and the interested party in the Chief Magistrate's Court.

Issues

  1. The jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal
  2. The legality of the Tribunal's decision to handle the case again

Reasoning

The Tribunal overstepped its mandate and acted illegally by handling the case again, which is an illegality that has to be quashed. The decision by the subordinate court is also invalid.

Outcome

Allowed

Orders

  • An order of certiorari removing into the High Court for purposes of quashing and setting aside the proceedings and award made by the Machakos District Land Disputes Tribunal
  • An order of prohibition prohibiting the respondents and interested party from implementing the said award

Remedies

  • Quashing of the award and the decision by the subordinate court

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act Section 3
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act Section 9
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