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

REPUBLIC v GATANGA LANDS DISPUTES TRIBUNAL & another EX-PARTE JOSEPH NGUGI KAGUTHA [2012] KEHC 5676 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5676 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
5676
Citation
[2012] KEHC 5676 (KLR)
Decided
2 March 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for orders of certiorari and prohibitionCoramC. W. GITHUA
Holding

The court quashes the entire proceedings and award made by the Land Disputes Tribunal and the decree issued by the Thika Chief Magistrate's Court.

Facts

The applicant and the interested party are brothers. The applicant was registered as the owner of land No.Loc.16/Ndunyu-Chege/212. The interested party claimed the land was fraudulently registered in the applicant's name and challenged the title. The Gatanga Land Disputes Tribunal awarded the interested party 2 acres from the land.

Issues

  1. The Land Disputes Tribunal acted without jurisdiction.
  2. The decree issued by the Thika Chief Magistrate's Court is null and void.

Reasoning

The tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute as it pertained to the division of registered land. The award and decree are null and void.

Outcome

The application is granted.

Orders

  • An order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court to quash the entire proceedings and award made by the Land Disputes Tribunal.
  • An Order of Prohibition prohibiting the District Land Registrar Thika from acting on the decree issued by the Thika Chief Magistrate's Court.

Remedies

  • The applicant is awarded the relief of costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (Act No.18 of 1990)
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