Keekonyokie Community Trust (Suing through its duly appointed Trustees) v Parantai & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 410 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 3309 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a community trust leadership fight because neither side could prove valid trustee elections, and ordered fresh elections within 90 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Identity of the valid trustees of the Keekonyokie Community Trust
Neither faction proved valid election; both the 10th and 24th October 2013 elections failed to comply with the Declaration of Trust
The Declaration of Trust required removal and appointment of trustees by a majority of community members. Neither party produced a register of members, and the attendance lists were flawed - the plaintiff's list was unsigned with missing ID numbers, while the 1st Defendant's list had repeated names. Neither side produced media advertisements or notices calling the meetings. The court held the burden lay on the plaintiff's trustees, who did not discharge it.
Validity of the 3rd Defendant's registration of the change of trustees
The 3rd Defendant acted unprocedurally and on misrepresentation in registering the new trustees
The Land Registrar registered the change on 4th November 2013 despite acknowledging that the original Certificate of Incorporation was missing, yet rejected the 1st Defendant's application on that very basis. The court found the Ministry misplacing the certificate while still registering the plaintiff's trustees was inconsistent and the registration was therefore unprocedural.
Validity of the AGM held on 3rd August 2018 during pendency of the suit
The meeting was void ab initio as it breached subsisting court orders barring dealings with the suit land
DW1 confirmed minutes referred to a meeting of 3rd August 2018 yet a court order barred any dealings on the suit land. The 1st Defendant admitted attending the meeting and claimed ignorance of the orders. The court held the meeting inconsequential because it contravened the orders in place.
Whether the 1st Defendant should be denied audience for contempt
Right to be heard is a constitutional right; audience cannot be denied even where contempt is alleged
Both the plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant argued the 1st Defendant should have no audience having failed to purge contempt. The court held that because the very dispute concerned the identity of valid trustees, and the right to be heard is constitutional, the 1st Defendant could not be denied audience.
Legal principles established
#- A Trust is governed by its constitution/trust deed as defined under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act
- There can only be one valid board of trustees of a Trust at any particular time
- A majority means more than half of the total membership where the trust deed does not define it
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- 3.The Keekonyokie Community Trust to hold fresh elections of the trustees within Ninety (90) days from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 2(1), 40, 50, 60(1), 63(2)(d) and 63(3) of the Constitution invoked in the Plaint; first-instance suit before the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keekonyokie Community Trust (Suing through its duly appointed Trustees) v Parantai & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 410 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 3309 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3309/eng@2024-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.