Republic v Marakwet District Land Disputes Tribunal,Marakwet District Commissioner,Marakwet District Lands Settlement Office,Minister of Lands & Settlement,Kibiwott Chemwei,Joseph Kibiwot Chemwei,Jacob Kibiwot,Smith Kaino & Chepkiyeng Chelanga Ex-Parte James Cheruiyot Cheptoo,William Kiptarus Cheboi,Paulo Komen Cheserek & Elisha Kimaiyo Cherop [2010] KEHC 2381 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION  71 OF 2006

REPUBLIC ………………………………...............……………………APPLICANT

=VERSUS=

1. THEMARAKWETDISTRICTLANDDISPUTES TRIBUNAL

2. MARAKWET DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

3. MARAKWET DISTRICT LANDS SETTLEMENTOFFICER

4. THE MINISTER OF LANDS & SETTLEMENT……...............RESPONDENTS

AND

1. KIBIWOTT CHEMWEI

2. JOSEPH KIBIWOT CHEMWEI

3. JACOB KIBIWOT

4. SMITH KAINO AND

5. CHEPKIYENG CHELANGA ………..........................INTERESTED PARTIES

AND

1. JAMES CHERUIYOT CHEPTOO

2. WILLIAM KIPTARUS CHEBOI

3. PAULO KOMEN CHESEREK

4. ELISHA KIMAIYO CHEROP…………....................EX-PARTE APPLICANTS

RULING

I.Background.

1. A dispute between two clans as to the  boundary has been going on for several  years. In this Current judicial review proceedings,a land disputes tribunal was held. It in fact was not completein its findings. There has been no decision adopted by theMagistrate’s Court.

2.    The exparte applicant applies for the said lands  disputes tribunal stopped from making orders on grounds that the saidtribunal members were sitting without  basis as none weregazetted under the gazette notice provided. Its civil L.N.288/04of 14. 4.2004 by A. Kimunya Minister of Lands as he then was.

II.In reply:

3.                       The Advocate for the respondent, Attorney General left it to

Court. The advocate for the interested party claim that there was nothing to quash as no  decision had been taken.

III.Opinion

4. Judicial review proceedings are brought into Court against orders making decisions that are detrimental to the exparteappeallant. In this particular  case no decision has been made to quash the said findings of  the elders (which findings is denied).

5.         The application for judicial review proceedings are hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent and  interested party.

DATED AT ELDORET THIS 21ST DAY OF April, 2010.

……………………………

M.A. ANG’AWA,

JUDGE.

Advocate

(i)Cheptarus Advocate instructed by the firm of M/s Cheptarus & Co. Adv. for the

Exparte Applicant - Present

(ii)R.K. Cheruiyot Advocate instructed by the firm of m/s Kimaru Kiplagat & Co. Adv. for the

Interested - Party - Present

((iii)  C. Oyula, State Counsel instructed by the Attorney General for the State – Present