Josephat Kimani Mirara & 2 others v Romano K. Mikigu [2013] KEELC 142 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court dismissed a self-help group's injunction because its officials lacked proof of authority and wrongly sued a government officer personally.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Plaintiffs as officials of an unincorporated self-help group
The Plaintiffs had no locus standi at the time because they did not produce official confirmation from the Provincial Director of Social Services that they were the bona fide officials of the group, while the Defendant produced evidence from the same office showing otherwise
Self-help groups are unincorporated associations regulated by a government department. Suits by or against them must involve all members or proceed representatively under Order 1 Rule 8. To determine whether the Plaintiffs were legitimate officials entitled to sue on behalf of the group, the court required official confirmation from the regulating entity. The Defendant's search from the Provincial Director showed the Plaintiffs were not recognized officials, and the Plaintiffs produced no controverting evidence from that office, so no orders could be granted to them.
Whether the Defendant, a government officer (area chief), was improperly joined
The Defendant was wrongly joined; claims in tort against a government servant should be instituted against the Government through the Attorney-General under sections 4(1) and 12 of the Government Proceedings Act
The cause of action alleged trespass to persons and breach of duties relating to property, which are torts by a government servant falling within section 4(1) of the Government Proceedings Act, under which the Government bears liability for its servants' torts. Section 12 provides that civil proceedings by or against the Government shall be instituted by or against the Attorney-General. The Defendant was therefore wrongly joined and the Notice of Motion was incompetent before the court.
Whether the requirements for a temporary injunction were met
The issue was not reached because no orders could be granted to the Plaintiffs or lie against the Defendant given the findings on locus standi and improper joinder
Having found that the Plaintiffs lacked locus standi and that the Defendant was wrongly joined as a government officer, the court dispensed with consideration of the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria for an interlocutory injunction. No injunction could issue in favour of parties without standing nor against the wrongly joined Defendant.
Legal principles established
#- A suit by or against unincorporated bodies must be brought in the names of, or against, all members of the body, or in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Plaintiffs claiming to sue on behalf of a self-help group must produce official confirmation from the regulating government entity (Provincial Director of Social Services or equivalent) that they are the bona fide officials of the group
- Where the alleged tort is committed by a government servant or agent, the proper party to sue is the Government through the Attorney-General under sections 4(1) and 12 of the Government Proceedings Act, not the individual officer
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2012 is dismissed
- 2.The Plaintiffs shall meet the costs of the Motion
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Gathaithe Farmers Cooperative Society Limited v Ndungu & another (Environment & Land Case 250 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2973 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 2973 (KLR)28 Jul 2022
- Henry Shikuku Barasa & 2 others v Reuben Fwamba Mbita [2019] KEELC 4781 (KLR)[2019] KEELC 4781 (KLR)31 Jan 2019
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Josephat Kimani Mirara & 2 others v Romano K. Mikigu [2013] KEELC 142 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2013/142/eng@2013-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.