Josephat Kabutiei v Trustee of the Inland Church of Kenya & another [2019] KECA 689 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a church member who has already been heard and cleared internally cannot compel a church to reopen its dispute process.
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 appellant was denied a fair hearing within the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the African Inland Church of Kenya
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in failing to resolve the dispute and in declining to compel the 1st respondent to constitute a dispute resolution committee
- 3.Whether the learned trial Judge exhibited bias against the appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether a court may determine issues not pleaded
The Court declined to entertain counsel's reformulation of the claim as defamation because it was not pleaded at trial
The Court found the trajectory taken by the appellant's counsel on appeal to be materially different from the pleadings in the trial court. The appellant had simply sought a declaration of a fair hearing and the setting up of a dispute resolution committee. Relying on Mareco Limited v Future Limited, the Court held that issues flow from pleadings and that a court cannot pronounce on issues not raised by the parties without acting outside its mandate.
Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing within the church's dispute resolution mechanism
The appellant was heard and exonerated by his local church and his accuser apologized; nothing remained for a further committee to resolve
Applying the audi alteram partem rule and the principles of natural justice, the Court concurred with the trial Judge that the appellant was actually heard by his local church, a 15-member delegation was appointed to report his exoneration to the regional church, and the matter effectively ended when the accuser apologized in the presence of her husband. The prayers would serve no useful purpose.
Claim of bias against the trial Judge
The claim of bias was unsubstantiated and did not warrant interference with the trial court's decision
The 1st respondent contended, and the Court accepted, that the claim of bias was not substantiated by any evidence; the learned Judge had properly evaluated the evidence and arrived at the right conclusion, giving the Court no reason to interfere with his decision on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Issues for determination by a court flow from the pleadings; a court cannot make pronouncements on issues not raised in the pleadings
- While courts will not involve themselves in the day-to-day running of institutions such as churches, they are duty-bound to compel an organization conducting its affairs contrary to its constitution to the detriment of its members to obey its constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs, taking into account the nature of the dispute between a congregant and his church
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C.C.C. No. 22 of 2007
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over appeals from the High Court (not expressly invoked in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the appellant was entitled to a fair and speedy hearing within the church's dispute resolution mechanism and mandatory injunction compelling constitution of a dispute resolution committee
The appellant had already been heard and exonerated at the local church level and the accuser had apologized; the prayers would serve no useful purpose
Costs
No orders as to costs - taking into account the nature of the dispute as between a congregant and his church, the Court made no orders as to costs
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.
It is trite that issues for determination by a court flow from the pleadings. A court cannot make pronouncement on issues not raised in the pleadings filed by parties and to do so would be tantamount to acting outside its mandate.
Due process is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law. It is the right to a fair hearing which is encapsulated in the audi alteram partem rule (no person should be condemned unheard) and founded on the well-established principles of natural justice.
Consequently, we find that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Taking into account the nature of the dispute is between a congregant and his church we make no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The 1st respondent is named in the title as 'The Trustee of the Inland Church of Kenya' while the facts and submissions describe the church as the 'African Inland Church of Kenya (A.I.C)', and counsel argued the 1st respondent was not sued in its correct name, 'Africa Inland Church Kenya Trustees Registered'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Josephat Kabutiei v Trustee of the Inland Church of Kenya & another [2019] KECA 689 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/689/eng@2019-04-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.