Republic v Ol-Jororok Division Land Dispute Tribunal & others [2013] KEHC 2995 (KLR)

REPUBLIC  OF  KENYA

IN THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  KENYA  AT  NAKURU

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO 52 OF  2012

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

VERSUS

OL-JOROROK DIVISION LAND

DISPUTE   TRIBUNAL  &  OTHERS…………………………...…………..…..RESPONDENT

RULING

Pursuant  to  leave granted on  17th   August  2012, to  commence  Judicial  review  proceedings, the  exparte  Applicant  filed a notice  of  motion  dated  28th  August   2012  seeking  the following order: That  an  order  of  certiorari do issue to remove  to this  court  and  quash the  decree given on  14th June, 2012 in  Nyahururu Principal Magistrate court  Land  Disputes  case  No.5 of  2011, adopting   the  award  of   OL’JORO-ROK Division  Land  Disputes tribunal  case no.006  OF  2006.

The application is premised on the grounds  that the   Land  Disputes  tribunal:

Had  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain  a claim  of   ownership or title  to  registered   land  under the  repealed  Registered Land  Act, cap 300  Laws  of  Kenya.

Entertained  a claim  which it had  no  jurisdiction to  entertain  under section 3(1)  of  repealed  land  Disputes  tribunal  Act no. 8  of   1990.

Granted  an  award  that  is a  nullity in Law  and  could  not  be  adopted  as  judgment   of  a court  of  Law. That the  subordinate  court acted  without  or  in  excess of  jurisdiction by  adopting   it  and the  two  had  no  jurisdiction  to  make  orders  under section 143  and 159  of the  repealed  Land  Act,  Cap 300  Laws  of  Kenya

Was  improperly constituted  since  under   the  repealed  land  disputes  tribunal  Act, only a  District  tribunal  could  hear  and  determine disputes  under the  Act.

Flouted  the  cardinal   rules  of  natural  justice  for  failure  to  serve the  applicant   with  notice  of the  claim  thereby denying  him a hearing and  condemning  him unheard.

That  the  interested  party   had noLocus  standi  to  institute  proceedings  in  defence  of  alleged public rights over  the suit land  and that the proceedings  were  a  nullity.

In support of the  application, Ahmed  Abdullahi swore an affidavit on15th August 2012 where he  depones  that  he  is the registered  proprietor  of   Nyandarua/OL'Jororok Salient/1886 (here after referred to as the suit land) measuring 1. 0 hectares  acquired from the settlement fund trustees: That  the  interested  party instituted  a claim at the  Ol’Joro-Orok Division land  disputes  tribunal on behalf of Rami self  help  group claiming  the  suit  land  belonged to the community: That although  the  applicant  was not served with the claim  documents   an award  was granted as follows:

1.    That the suit land belonged to the area  community including Rami self help group

2.    The court to nullify this illegal acquisition by cancelling the title deed held by Ahmed- M  Abdullahi  and  revert  ownership to the Government land trustee.

The Nyahururu Principal Magistrates  Court adopted the award as  judgment of the court  and issued a decree on 17th  July 2012 which is the subject of  challenge  in this  judicial review.

The application was not opposed.

When  the  matter  came  up for hearing  before  me  on 19th April 2013, counsel  for the  respondents  stated  that the Land Disputes tribunal had exceeded its  jurisdiction and therefore the application should be allowed.

The interested party did not enter appearance.

The  remedy  of  judicial  review is  concerned not  with  the  private  rights  or  merits  of the  decision being  challenged but with  the  decision  making  process.  Its purposes  is to ensure that the  individual  is given  fair treatment by the  authority  to  which  he  has  been  subjected. See Republic V  Secretary of state  for  Education and  Science  (Exparte) Avon County  Council (1991)  I  ALL ER  282  at  285. The  point is  more  succinctly  made  in the English  case  ofchief  constable  of  North  Wales  Police  Vs  Evan (1982) I  W.L.R 1155, by  Lord  Hailsham of  St  Marlebone.

Thus:

“the  purpose  of  judicial review  is to ensure that the  individual  receives  fair treatment, and  not  to ensure that the authority after  according fair  treatment, reaches on a matter which it is  authorized by  law to  decide  for   itself a  conclusion  which is  correct in the  eyes  of the court”

Therefore, a decision of  an  inferior  court  or  public  authority may be quashed (by an order of certiorari  made on application of  Judicial  review) where the  court or authority acted without  jurisdiction, or  exceeded its  jurisdiction, or failed to comply with the rules of   natural  justice in a case where these rules are applicable, or  where there  is an  error of  law on the  face  of the record  or the decision  is unreasonable   in the  Hals bury sense.

In this case, the claimant moved to the tribunal seeking a declaration for cancellation of title. The tribunal  granted an award stating that the title deed held by  Ahmed M Abdullahi  should be cancelled  and  ownership revert back to the Government land  trustee. It is  evident that the OL’JORO-OROK Division Land Disputes tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute relating to cancellation of title. The mandate of the tribunal as provided for under section  3(i)  of the repealed  Land  Disputes  tribunal  Act  no. 18 of 1990 was  limited to hearing civil cases in the following areas:

a)    The division of or the determination of  boundaries of land, including and  held  in  common:

b)    claim to  occupy or work land, or

c)    trespass to land

Secondly, was the tribunal properly constituted to hear the dispute?

Section 4(1) of the repealed land disputes Tribunal Act no.18 of 1990 is clear about the constitution of the tribunal.

4(1)“ There  shall be established  a tribunal, to  be called the  lands  disputes  tribunal, for every registration district- ( Emphasis mine). OL’Jororok  is  not  a registered  district. The registered district for that area (before the repealed Act) was Nyandarua. l hold that the Divisional tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Thirdly, did the failure to serve the  applicant with  the notice flout the  cardinal rule of natural justice?  my answer is in the affirmative.

Section 3(4)  of the same  Act  requires  that  “ every claim shall be served  on the  party or where there   are  more  than  one,  on each  of the   other   parties  to  the  dispute  and  the  provisions  of the  Civil  Procedure Act as regards  summonses shall  thereafter  apply”

Since no evidence has been adduced to the contrary  I shall  take  it  that  there was no service. Service is mandatory and this definitely flouts the  cardinal  rule  of  natural  justice.

Finally it is alleged that the interested party had no Locus to institute proceedings in defense of alleged public right over the suit land. I do not agree. Article 40 (3)(b)(ii) subject  to  Article 65 of the Constitution allows any person who has an interest in or right over a property which is of a public nature or of a public purpose the right of access to a court  of  law. I find that the claimant had locus standito institute this claim.

The upshot of the foregoing is that the tribunal exceeded its mandate. I will allow this application for  judicial review  on the following   terms:

The award  of the   OL’ JORO-OROK  Divisional  land Disputes  tribunal case No. 006 I  2006 and the  decree adopting  the  award  are  set  aside.

No order is made on costs as the claimant/interested  party  did  not   enter  appearance.

Dated, signed and delivered in open Court at Nakuru this  5th day  of July  2013.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

Present

Mr  Chege  for  the  applicants

Mr  Njuguna  for respondents

Stephen  Mwangi: court   Clerk

L N  WAITHAKA

JUDGE