Kimata v Omani & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4626 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled a 1990s title issued through a Land Disputes Tribunal because tribunals had no power to decide land ownership disputes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Vihiga Land Disputes Tribunal and the Kakamega Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee had jurisdiction over the claim that led to the cancellation of the applicant's title
- 2.Whether the adoption of the Tribunal and Appeals Committee decisions by the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court in Vihiga SRM Misc Appl No. 21 of 1997 should be set aside
- 3.Whether the applicant's constitutional right to property was violated by the cancellation of his title
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal over title disputes
The claim before the Tribunal was a claim of title to the suit land, not trespass, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain or cancel title to land.
Section 3 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990 limited the Tribunal's jurisdiction to claims concerning division or determination of boundaries to land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass to land. The claim before the Vihiga Tribunal resulted in cancellation of the applicant's title and issuance of a new title to the original Respondent, which was a title claim outside the statutory jurisdiction. The award was therefore ultra vires and a nullity.
Effect of adoption of a null Tribunal award by the Magistrate's Court
The decision adopted as a judgment of the court was ultra vires the Tribunal's powers; the award was a nullity and the cancellation of the applicant's title on its basis breached his constitutional right to land.
Relying on Johana Nyokwoyo Buti v Walter Rasugu Omariba, the court held that a judgment entered in accordance with a Tribunal decision may be challenged in fresh proceedings where the decision was ultra vires or obtained by mistake. Since both the Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Committee lacked jurisdiction, their award filed in court was a nullity, and the resultant cancellation of the applicant's title infringed his constitutional right to property.
Legal principles established
#- Land Disputes Tribunals had no jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to, or to cancel, title to land; an award made in excess of jurisdiction and adopted as a judgment of the court is a nullity.
Court orders
#- 1.The adoption of the decisions of the Vihiga Land Disputes Tribunal dated 7/10/1997 and the Kakamega Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee dated 9/9/1999 by the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court Vihiga in Vihiga SRM Misc Appl No. 21 of 1997 is hereby set aside
- 2.All the orders and proceedings in Vihiga Misc Appl. No. 21 of 1997 are hereby set aside
- 3.Title deed number S. Maragoli/Kegoye656 in the name of Christina Savai Chasimba and subsequent registrations is hereby cancelled and a new title to issue in the name of the applicant Raphael Chasimba, deceased for administration as part of his estate
- 4.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Supervisory Jurisdiction and Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual) High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2006
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree in Vihiga SRM Misc Appl No. 21 of 1997 and stay of eviction (prayer e), and the ancillary prayers (f, g, h, i) not granted in terms
The court allowed the application only in terms of prayers a, b, c and d
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to or to cancel title to land.
The decision that was adopted as a judgement of the court was ultra vires the powers of the Tribunal. Both the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Appeals Committee had no jurisdiction to handle the matter before them.
The adoption of the decisions of the Vihiga Land Disputes Tribunal dated 7/10/1997 and the Kakamega Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee dated 9/9/1999 by the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court Vihiga in Vihiga SRM Misc Appl No. 21 of 1997 is hereby set aside.
Title deed number S. Maragoli/Kegoye656 in the name of Christina Savai Chasimba and subsequent registrations is hereby cancelled and a new title do issue in the name of the applicant Raphael Chasimba, deceased for administration as part of his estate.
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the record: the applicant (Raphael Chasimba) is described in the affidavit as the applicant, yet counsel's submissions refer to 'the late Raphael Chasimba' and the final order directs a new title in the name of 'the applicant Raphael Chasimba, deceased', creating ambiguity as to whether the applicant is living or deceased.
The substantive judgment quotes a verbatim passage referring to 'the appellant's constitutional right to land' although the matter is a first-instance application with no appellant.
The judgment does not print the current (Vihiga) case number; the current case number must be inferred from the record narrative.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimata v Omani & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4626 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega ELC Misc C. No. 19 of 2019 (transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Vihiga). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4626/eng@2025-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.