Registered Trustees of the African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa v Arch Bishop Amos Mathenge Kabuthu & another [2016] KEELC 742 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan church leadership fight stalled in court because the side suing couldn't prove it truly spoke for the church, and interim protections were lifted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Joinder of interested parties
The persons named by the 1st defendant as the bonafide trustees are necessary parties whose presence will assist the court to adjudicate the dispute completely
The central question is who are the bonafide trustees of AIPCA. Since the 1st defendant named the applicants as the bonafide trustees and they claim an interest in the outcome, the court's discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and its inherent power under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act justified joining them so all questions can be settled.
Prima facie case for injunction
The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case because their capacity to sue on behalf of AIPCA is uncertain
The suit was anchored on the affidavit of Simon Peter Mwangi, but the 1st defendant produced documents showing Mwangi and Paul Watoro Gichu were removed as trustees and excommunicated on 12th May 2014. Those allegations are disputed and are matters for trial evidence; the court could not hold with certainty that they are bonafide trustees with capacity to sue.
Irreparable injury
Given the uncertainty as to capacity, the court could not ascertain any irreparable loss
Since it is uncertain whether the deponent and Paul Watoro Gichu have capacity to sue, it follows that the court cannot determine whether they would suffer loss incapable of compensation by damages. The second Giella limb was therefore not satisfied.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining the status quo that prevailed before the suit was filed
The core dispute is leadership wrangles between alleged trustees, not members. No key church members complained of danger of disposal of the properties, and there was no evidence of immediate danger to property. The status quo before suit meant no restraining orders were in force, so the existing restraining orders were vacated.
Legal principles established
#- A party's presence in a suit may be ordered where necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved
- Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy granted at the court's discretion, to be exercised judicially
- Temporary injunctions require evidence of immediate danger to property and their purpose is to preserve the status quo
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 27th February 2015 is allowed and the applicants therein (Stanley Mburu Mwangi, Timothy Gitonga Gachaya, Samuel Mburu Kimani, Eliud Njua Juma, John Maina and Philip Kubai) are enjoined as Defendants in the suit
- 2.The Plaintiff to amend its pleadings accordingly to reflect the enjoined Defendants
- 3.The Court vacates the restraining orders in force
- 4.The Notice of Motion dated 12th September 2014 is dismissed entirely with costs being in the cause
- 5.The parties to set the main suit down for hearing expeditiously so that the underlying issues can be resolved with finality
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) and 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of the African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa v Arch Bishop Amos Mathenge Kabuthu & another [2016] KEELC 742 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). ELC Case No. 1216 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/742/eng@2016-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.