DANIEL KIBUI WAITITU v KIPIRIRI DISTRICT LANDS DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2011] KEHC 2459 (KLR)

REPUBLICOF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT

AT NAKURU

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO 90 OF 2009

DANIEL KIBUI WAITITU............................................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

KIPIRIRI DISTRICTLANDS DISPUTES   TRIBUNAL .......................................RESPONDENT

J U D G E M E N T

This is a Judicial Reviewapplication. The ex-parte   applicant is Daniel Kibui Waititu who filed   the Notice of Motion dated 23/9/09 in   which he seeks an order of Certiorari to issue to   remove to this court, the proceedings and award of the Kipipiri District Land Disputes Tribunal in Kipipiri Division   case no 46 of 2008 for purposes of quashing the same . The Respondent is the Kipipiri Land Disputes Tribunal while   the   Interested Parties are Gladys Wairimu Kiragu and Kiragu Waititu .

The application is predicatedon grounds found in the Statutory   statement and the affidavit  of the applicant dated 23/9/09, submissions and   authorities  filed by Mr Njogu, counsel for the applicant on 28/2/2011. The application   was opposed by the Interested parties who filed a replying affidavit dated 11/7/2010 , submissions and authorities on 5/11/2010.

The Respondent did not appear.

The ex-parteapplicant is  the brother of the  2nd Interested Party, Kiragu   Waititu, who  are both sons of one Beth Ngima Waititu (deceased) . The 1st Interested Party  is the  wife of the 2nd Interested Party who is said to be dumb  and deaf and that his why his wife  filed a suit   on his behalf at the Land Disputes Tribunal.

The applicant contends that landparcels   Nyandarua /Kirima/1716 and 1717 were allotted to him by the Settlement Fund Trustee ( (DW1) and he made payments for the said plots (DW2). Titles in   respect   of   1716 and 1717   were issued   to him on 17/11/99 as evidenced by the copies of title (DKW 6 )and (7). He also   attached   the search  certificates as proof of  ownership (DW8) and (9). The  2nd Interested Party  filed   Kipipiri   LDT case 46/2008, claiming that the land   belonged   to  their mother , Beth Ngima and that the late Beth Ngima had wished that the land be subdivided into 2  equal   portions and to be shared by  her 2 sons equally. The applicant denied that  he was registered as proprietor to hold the land in trust , on behalf of himself and his brother. The  Tribunal  heard the dispute and directed that  the  Nyandarua   Surveyor do curve  3 Ha (7 acres) out of   the plot  1716 and surrender it   to the Interested Parties (DKW 10) and the decision was adopted by the Nyahururu PM’S Court. It is the applicants  contention that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine   the said claim which was based on trust and the award is therefore a nullity and should be quashed   by an order of  Certiorari . Counsel relied on Republic Vrs Kajiado  Land Disputes Tribunal HM ISC 1689/2001 where  the court   held   that the court has supervisory   functions over tribunals to strike out nullities.  He also   cited Republic VRS  Nyandarua Land Disputes Tribunal no 79/1999,where   the court held that the court had jurisdiction to quash any decision  made by the tribunal   without   jurisdiction.

The 2nd Interested Party deponed that their mother, Beth Ngima was allottedthe said piece of land 277 Kirima Scheme  in 1966 and the ex -parte   applicant   requested to be registered as trustee to which their mother  agreed, on  condition   that the land   was held  in trust . He  further   deponed that the land belongs to  Beth  Ngima, who paid the Settlement   Fund Trustee and upon completion of payments, the applicant was registered  as the proprietor  and that   according  to  Kikuyu Customary Law, the  land was held in trust for the sons of Beth Ngima and the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine  the claim for division  of  property   and that the   issue of trust   that has been raised herein is   misplaced . Mr Nderitu, Counsel for the  Interested Parties also argued that if the applicant was dissatisfied  with the decision , he should   have appealed   as provided under section 8(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act . Counsel relied on many decisions inter alia  Republic Vrs   JSC  ex-parte Pareno (2004) I KLR  203, Wamukoya   Vrs Kipsaina  Land Disputes TRibunal (2003) KLR 59.

The jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes  is donated to the Tribunal by section 3(1) of the Land Dispute Tribunal Act. The said   section provides as   hereunder:-

“3(1) subjectto the Act , all  cases of a Civil Nature involving a dispute to,

(a) Thedivision of, or the determination ofboundaries to land, including land held incommon,

(b)  a claim to  occupying or work land, or

(c)  trespass to land,

Shall be heard and determined by a tribunalestablished under  section 4”

Having considered all the  rival arguments made before this court,  it is apparent that the suit land, Nyandarua /Kirima/1716 and 1717, are bothregistered under the Registered Land Act, Cap 300 Laws of Kenya. The suit land  was  registered   in the name of the ex-parte applicant  as absolute  owner since17/11/1999. I have read the proceedings   before the Land Disputes Tribunal  Kipipiri which were exhibited ( DKW 10) and it is apparent that the applicant and the 1st Interested Party have a dispute over the ownership of the said land. The Interested   Party alleges that the land was held in trust, for the benefit of both the applicant   and the  1st Interested Party   which the applicant  denies. That dispute is reinforced by the   decision   made by the tribunal . The Tribunal’s  award reads as follows: -

(1)In view of the facts   before thisPanel of elders, Mr Daniel KibuiWaititu is guilty of monopolizing the land in question and denyinghis brotherKiragu his birth rights of owning hisMother’s land.

(2)Through this ruling, the NyandaruaDistrictLandSurveyor is requested to curve 3 Ha. or 7 acres of land fromNyandarua/Kirima/1716

(3)...........................................................”

By this decision the tribunal made a disposition  of land from the applicant to the respondent which action fell outsidethe   mandate of the Tribunal as conferred by Section 3(1) of the Act . The applicant being an absolute proprietor , the title could only  be defeated or challenged  on  account of   fraud and the Tribunal   had no jurisdiction to make such a determination . Since the allegation was that the land was held   in trust, the only court with jurisdiction to determine that issue was the High Court or a Resident  Magistrate’s  Court  where the property does not exceed a value of British pounds 25,000. Under section 159 of the Registered Land Act. I am  therefore satisfied that the Land Disputes Tribunal Kipipiri lacked  the   jurisdiction to hear and determine the   claim between the applicant  and the 1st interested party and therefore acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred  by   section 3(1) of the Act. As was held in the Kajiado  Land Disputes Tribunal case, an order of certiorari lies to quash a decision made in excess or without   jurisdiction or a nullity . An appeal only lies on   the merits of a decision  but   in this case, the decision   is a nullity and only a order of certiorari can issue to quash it.

Althoughthe applicant  is aware that   the award of the Land Disputes Tribunal had been adopted by the  Principal Magistrate’s Court, Nyahururu. The applicant   has not  sought to have the courts award quashed. However, since the decision that gave rise to the proceedings. in the Principal Magistrate’s Court is annulity  anyway, the Court  will quash the decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal and it follows that all subsequent proceedings and orders arising therefrom are nullities. Prayer 1 of  the Notice of Motion dated 23/9/2009 is granted with costs to the applicant.

DATED  AND DELIVERED THIS 11thDAY OF MAY, 2011.

RPV WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mrs Kereri holding brief for Mr Njogu for Applicant

Mr Nderitu for Respondent for 1st and 2 InterestedParties

Kennedy Oguma – Court Clerk