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

Philomena Chepkemoi Seron v Chairman Sotik Land Dispute Tribunal & 2 others [2014] KEHC 4389 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 4389 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4389
Citation
[2014] KEHC 4389 (KLR)
Decided
30 May 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication for CertiorariCoramJ.K.SERGON
Holding

The Motion dated 24th January 2011 is well founded. The Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute.

Facts

The 3rd Respondent filed a complaint before the Sotik Land Disputes Tribunal claiming beneficial interest of the parcel of land known as L.R.no.Kericho/Chemagel/1057. The Land Disputes Tribunal awarded the 3rd Respondent a portion measuring one (1) acre to be excised from L.R.no.Kericho/Chemagel/1057. The award was adopted as the Judgment of the Sotik Principal Magistrate's Court.

Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the Sotik Land Disputes Tribunal
  2. Fraudulent registration

Reasoning

The Land Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute under Section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act no.18 of 1990 (now repealed).

Outcome

The Motion is allowed.

Orders

  • The decree and/or judgment of the Honourable court, the Principal Magistrate, Sotik, delivered and/or issued on 12th March, 2009 and also the verdict of Sotik Land Disputes Tribunal adopted by the Sotik Honourable Court, Land Case no.4 of 2009 are removed into this Honourable Court for purposes of being quashed forthwith.
  • Each one of the Applicant and the 3rd Respondent is directed to meet her own costs.

Remedies

  • Quashing of the decree and/or judgment of the Honourable court, the Principal Magistrate, Sotik, delivered and/or issued on 12th March, 2009 and also the verdict of Sotik Land Disputes Tribunal adopted by the Sotik Honourable Court, Land Case no.4 of 2009.
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