ISAAC MAINA MURATHE v JESIDAH WANJIRU MURATHE [2010] KEHC 4135 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU

Civil Appeal 87 of 2007

ISAAC MAINA MURATHE………………………………………………APPELLANT

VERSUS

JESIDAH WANJIRU MURATHE…………………………………RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises from the Award of the Provincial Land Disputes Committee in Provincial Land Disputes Tribunal/Committee in claim No. 8 of 2001   The appellant in his Memorandum of Appeal has proffered 2 grounds only as hereunder:-

1. That the Provincial Land Disputes Committee erred in law for not giving reasons for its decision.

2. That the Provincial Land Disputes Committee erred in law in directing that the appellant give the respondent 1 acre out of the appellants land parcel No. Mwerua/Kagioini/253, which directive/award the tribunal did not have jurisdiction in view of section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No.18 of 1990.

He asks the court to allow the appeal and set aside the Award of the District Land Disputes Tribunal, adoption of the award in Baricho Land Disputes Tribunal No. 14 of the 2001 and the award of the Provincial Land Disputes Tribunal/Committee in claim No.8 of 2007.

The Respondent in her reply did not have much to say save that he had been given the land -2 acres initially and later 1 acre by the Provincial Land Disputes Committee.

This appeal hinges purely on points of law. Indeed, I will dispose of it on ground 2 only. Did either Tribunal have jurisdiction to arbitrate over the land in question?

Jurisdiction to handle claims under the Land Disputes Tribunal is provided for under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act as hereunder:-

(1)(a) The division of, or the determination of boundaries to land, including land held in common.

(b)A claim to occupy or work land

(c)Trespass to land

This jurisdiction does not therefore extend to determining ownership of land and cancellation or alteration of Title Deeds. In this case, the Tribunal/Provincial/Committee directed that the Appellants land be sub-divided and the Respondent be given the documents (read Title Deed) for the 2 acres. This was clearly an interference with the proprietory rights of the Appellant conferred to him under the Registered Land Act cap 300 of the Laws of Kenya.

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with these rights. Issues of ownership of Registered Land and alteration or cancellation of Title Deeds is strictly within the domain of the High Court and the subordinate court in few instances depending on the value of the land.

The orders made by the Tribunal/Provincial Committee though well intentioned were therefore ultra vires the law and the same are null and void for all intents and purposes.   Had the Respondent been given the right to work and occupy the land without the order that she be given the Title Deed, the award would have been sustained. As the matter stands now, the law is not on the Respondents side. This appeal must therefore succeed. The same is hereby allowed with each party being ordered to meet its own costs.  The order on costs is informed by the fact that the parties are brother and sister.

W.KARANJA

JUDGE

Delivered, signed and signed at Embu this 16th day of Feb 2010.

In presence of Appellant, Maina Kagio for him

N/A for Respondent.