Stephen Kanko Karrao v Peter Kangango Mathu, Samson Karanja Munyua & Onesmus Ndungu Wachanga [2004] KEHC 1250 (KLR) | Leave To Appeal Out Of Time | Esheria

Stephen Kanko Karrao v Peter Kangango Mathu, Samson Karanja Munyua & Onesmus Ndungu Wachanga [2004] KEHC 1250 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 986 OF 2003

STEPHEN KANKO KARRAO ………………...………… APPELLANT VERSUS PETER KANGANGO MATHU SAMSON KARANJA MUNYUA ONESMUS NDUNGU WACHANGA ………….….…. RESPONDENTS

RULING

This is an application under Section 79 G of the Civil Procedure Act for leave to file appeal out of time from the decision of Hon. Ndungu, RM, Kajiado dated 16th December, 2002 and 12th February, 2003, who confirmed and adopted the award of the Land Disputes Tribunal.

Section 8 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act 1990 (Act No 18 of 1990) provides for the procedure of appeal from a decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal established under Section 4 of that Act. Section 8 (9) of the Act provides that there is no direct appeal to this court from a decision of that Tribunal. Before one can appeal to this court, he is required by Section 8 (1) to appeal to the Land Disputes Appeals Committee established under Section 9 (1) of the Act for the province in which the land is the subject matter of the dispute is situated. An appeal to this court can only be from the decision of such an Appeals Committee.

In the draft Memorandum of Appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant, it is stated that the appeal was against the decision of the Land Dispute Tribunal in case No 33 of 2002 and the Judgment delivered by the Honourable Magistrate Miss H N Ndungu on 16th December, 2002 and 12th February, 2003 confirming the award (of the Tribunal) and the subsequent Ruling. Consequently, the Appellant sought that “the Tribunal Award and the Honourable Lower Court’s Ruling be set aside and the appeal allowed.

” As can be seen, the appeal is incompetent as the decisions appealed from are not contemplated nor provided for in the Land Disputes Tribunals Act in which the appeal is purportedly based. I, therefore, dismiss the application with costs to the Respondent.

Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of November, 2004.

ALNASHIR VISRAM

JUDGE