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

Republic v Chairman, Mwimbi Land Disputes Tribunal & another Samuel Kaaria Exparte [2014] KEHC 629 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 629 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
629
Citation
[2014] KEHC 629 (KLR)
Decided
15 October 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for an order of prohibitionCoramOjwang
Holding

The Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's dispute. The ex parte applicant did not challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction and has not quashed the LDT decision. The application for an order of prohibition is dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Samuel Kaaria, claims that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order the transfer of land registered under Cap 300, Laws of Kenya. The respondent, Chairman, Mwimbi Land Disputes Tribunal, had sought a share of family land, which was developed by the respondent. The applicant actively participated in the proceedings but did not challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's dispute.
  2. Whether the ex parte applicant merits an order of prohibition.

Reasoning

The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the respondent's dispute. The ex parte applicant did not challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction and has not quashed the LDT decision. The application for an order of prohibition is dismissed.

Outcome

Dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act
  • Registered Land Act
  • Government Proceedings Act
Cases cited (2)
  • MV SS LILIAN
  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act
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