Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in extract (Plaint dated 14th July 2014)· [2014] KEELC 51 (KLR)

Keekonyokie Farmers Co-Op Society Ltd v . Peter Mositet & 18 others [2014] KEELC 51 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 December 2014
2,744 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a co-operative society's land suit because the society's registration had been cancelled, meaning it no longer legally existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Keekonyokie Farmers Co-Operative Society Limited, sued by plaint dated 14th July 2014 seeking a declaration that it is the proprietor of and entitled to exclusive possession of KAJIADO/OLCHORO ONYORE/46, a permanent injunction against the Defendants, and damages for trespass. It simultaneously sought a temporary injunction, alleging an unlawful resolution of 5th June 2014 to appropriate and sub-divide the suit property. The 1st-4th and 5th-19th Defendants filed preliminary objections contending the Plaintiff society had ceased to exist following cancellation of its registration by Gazette Notice No. 11916 of 6th August 2013 pursuant to a Co-operative Tribunal decision, and that the suit was therefore incompetent and an abuse of process. The Plaintiff argued the objections could not be raised absent pleadings and that dissolution required proof of the statutory process under section 61(1), a matter requiring evidence. The court held technical objections may be raised independently of pleadings under Order 2 Rule 14, and applied the Mukisa Biscuit test, finding the objections raised pure points of law on the undisputed legal effect of the gazette notice. Construing sections 12, 61, 62, 63 and 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the court held that upon cancellation the Plaintiff ceased to exist as a corporate body and all its property vested in the appointed liquidator, leaving it without capacity to sue. The preliminary objections were upheld and the Plaintiff's suit and application were struck out with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objections were competent notwithstanding that no defence had been filed

Holding

Technical objections may be raised independently of pleadings under Order 2 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Reasoning

The Plaintiff argued the objections were unsustainable because not premised on pleadings. The court held that Order 2 Rule 14 forbids technical objections based on want of form, meaning such objections may be raised against any pleading provided they do not attack form. It further adopted the Mukisa Biscuit definition: a preliminary objection raises a pure point of law on assumed pleaded facts and cannot stand where facts must be ascertained or discretion exercised.

p. 4
02

Whether the liquidation order in Gazette Notice No. 11916 deprived the Plaintiff of capacity to sue

Holding

Yes; the Plaintiff ceased to exist as a corporate body and its property vested in the liquidator

Reasoning

The Plaintiff was a body corporate under section 12 of the Co-operative Societies Act, whose charter of incorporation was that Act. The unchallenged Gazette Notice No. 11916 of 6th August 2013 cancelled its registration and appointed a liquidator. By sections 63 and 65, the society ceased to exist as a corporate body and all its property vested in the liquidator, leaving the Plaintiff no capacity to hold property, contract or sue over the suit property.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or where judicial discretion is sought
  • Upon cancellation of registration under the Co-operative Societies Act, a society ceases to exist as a corporate body and its property vests in the liquidator
  • Technical objections may be raised independent of any pleading so long as they do not attack the form of a pleading

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendants' preliminary objections dated 23rd July 2014 are upheld
  2. 2.The Plaintiff's suit and application both dated 14th July 2014 are struck out
  3. 3.The Plaintiff shall meet the costs of the suit and application and of the preliminary objections

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Co-operative Societies Actsection 12
  • Co-operative Societies Actsection 61
  • Co-operative Societies Actsection 62
  • Co-operative Societies Actsection 63
  • Co-operative Societies Actsection 65
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 14
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 9

Cases cited (4)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd -vs- West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • Matinyani Women's Development Group vs Group Four Security Limited
    HCCC No. 1043 of 1997
  • Lumumba Mumma & Kaluma Advocates vs Kenya Railways Corporation
    HCCC No. 499 of 2010
  • Kenton Kijabe Co-operative Society vs The Commissioner Of Co-operative Development and Five Others
    HCCC No. 63 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over land claims; Co-operative Societies Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Keekonyokie Farmers Co-Op Society Ltd v . Peter Mositet & 18 others [2014] KEELC 51 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in extract (Plaint dated 14th July 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/51/eng@2014-12-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.