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 judgment· [2021] KEELC 3999 (KLR)

Francis Njuguna v Secretary, Anglican Church of Kenya & another [2021] KEELC 3999 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 March 2021
1,273 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a lawsuit against the Anglican Church Eldoret because the church was sued in the wrong name instead of its trustees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendants raised a preliminary objection dated 23rd April 2018 on two grounds: that the suit was an abuse of the court process and that they were incapable of being sued except through their trustees. The Plaintiff opposed through grounds of opposition arguing the objection sought final orders at interlocutory stage and was frivolous and vexatious. Counsel filed written submissions; the Defendants contended that the 2nd Defendant was an association registered under the Societies Act, Cap 108, hence without capacity to sue or be sued in its own name, and that the 1st Defendant, its employee, likewise lacked capacity. The court framed three issues: capacity of the Defendants, whether the objection should be upheld, and costs. The court found that the 2nd Defendant was a religious entity registered under the Societies Act which, per Section 3 of the Act and superior court decisions, can only sue or be sued through elected officials or trustees per its constitution. Nothing in the pleadings showed the 1st Defendant was an elected official or trustee, and the claim he was an employee went unrebutted. Both Defendants therefore lacked capacity to be sued, rendering the suit an abuse of process. Rejecting the Plaintiff's argument that final orders cannot issue at the interlocutory stage, the court held preliminary objections may be raised at any stage and that Articles 159(2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 19 of the ELC Act require expeditious disposal. The objection was upheld and the Plaint dated 16th March 2018 struck out with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Capacity of the 2nd Defendant, a society registered under the Societies Act, to be sued

Holding

The 2nd Defendant is without capacity to be sued in its own name

Reasoning

The Plaint described the 2nd Defendant as a church registered under the Societies Act. Relying on Section 3 of the Act and superior court decisions cited by defence counsel, the court found that such religious entities can only sue or be sued through their elected officials or trustees per their constitutions.

p. 2
02

Capacity of the 1st Defendant, said to be an employee, to be sued on behalf of the 2nd Defendant

Holding

The 1st Defendant lacks capacity as nothing in the pleadings shows he is an elected official or trustee

Reasoning

There was nothing in the pleadings to show the 1st Defendant was an elected official or trustee of the 2nd Defendant. The assertion in the Defendants' submissions that he was an employee was not challenged or rebutted by the Plaintiff.

p. 2
03

Whether a preliminary objection can result in striking out a suit at the interlocutory stage

Holding

Preliminary objections may be raised at any stage; where defendants lack capacity, the suit should not be allowed to remain pending

Reasoning

The Plaintiff argued final orders cannot issue at interlocutory stage, but the court held the law permits preliminary objections at any stage and that obligations under Article 159(2)(b) and (d), Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 19 of the ELC Act require expeditious disposal without wasting costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Religious entities registered under the Societies Act lack capacity to sue or be sued in their own names and may only do so through their elected officials or trustees in accordance with their constitution.
  • A suit against parties without capacity to be sued is an abuse of the court process.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendants' preliminary objection dated the 23rd April, 2018 is hereby upheld.
  2. 2.The Plaintiff's suit commenced through the Plaint dated the 16th March, 2018 is hereby struck out with costs.
  3. 3.The Ruling is to be transmitted digitally by the Deputy Registrar to the Counsel on record through their e-mail addresses.
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011, Section 19; Article 159(2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Njuguna v Secretary, Anglican Church of Kenya & another [2021] KEELC 3999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3999/eng@2021-03-17

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