Living Waters E.A.P.C (suing thro’ his registered Officials Viz Andrew Nyaga & another v East Africa Pentecostal Church (suing through its registeredTrustees Viz Justus Kinoti Ringera & 2 others [2017] KEELC 572 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed the parent church's ownership of disputed properties and its injunction, but allowed part of the breakaway church's earlier appeal on procedural fairness grounds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of misjoinder/misdescription of parties
The suit was properly saved from incompetence; Order 1 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules saves a suit from being incompetent by reason of misjoinder or misdescription
The trial magistrate quoted Order 1 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules in saving the suit. The court held she properly directed herself to the law on this ground of appeal, so the challenge to capacity and misdescription failed.
Ownership of the suit properties and entitlement to injunction
The trial magistrate's findings on ownership were supported by the evidence (green cards, certificates of search) and the injunction was properly granted on the Giella principles
PW1 produced green cards and searches showing the properties registered in favour of the Plaintiff. Plots reserved for religious purposes belonged to the County Government but the Plaintiff demonstrated an interest capable of protection by equity. The magistrate properly applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles for injunctions.
Refusal of interlocutory injunction in CMCC No. 428 of 2002
The ruling refusing the injunction was not informed by the pleadings and applicable law; the appellant had demonstrated a prima facie case with a high chance of success and irreparable injury
The appellant deponed to the constitution of the society providing dispute-resolution mechanisms which the respondent had breached; those averments were not controverted. Hence the appeal against that ruling succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court reviews the evidence of a first-instance decision with caution, intervening only where there is no evidence to support the conclusion or the trial judge plainly went wrong
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2004/2008 allowed with each party bearing their own costs
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application dated 14/08/2002
- 3.Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2002 dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 4.Permanent injunction granted by the trial magistrate restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiffs properties (LR Nos. 1713, 2885, 2267, 576, 461 and 250) left undisturbed
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Meru
- CMCC No. 428 of 2002 (Ruling of Hon. Njeru Ithiga SPM, 13/08/2002) and CMCC No. 727 of 2004 (Judgment of Hon. M.S.G. Khadambi SRM, 02/10/2008)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Subordinate Courts (first appellate jurisdiction over magistrates' courts)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Living Waters E.A.P.C (suing thro’ his registered Officials Viz Andrew Nyaga & another v East Africa Pentecostal Church (suing through its registeredTrustees Viz Justus Kinoti Ringera & 2 others [2017] KEELC 572 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). HCCA No. 96 of 2008 & Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2008 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/572/eng@2017-12-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.