Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2024] KEELC 3542 (KLR)

Nganga & 3 others (Suing as the Registered Trustees of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship Church) v Joseph Kamau Mande, John Mwangi Kabicho, Gilbert Ndungu Ndirangu (Sued as the Registered Trustees of New Covenant Disciples Church) & another (Environment & Land Case 323 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 3542 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 April 2024
8,688 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~35 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that church trustees who leave cannot take the church's land, dismissing their ownership claim and ordering them to pay costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, trustees of Disciple of Christ Foundation Fellowship (registered 2011, certificate 35832), sued the 1st Defendant (New Covenant Disciples Church, formerly Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship, registered 1992 under certificate 15256 and re-registered in 2012 as certificate 38375) and the Registrar of Societies, seeking declarations of ownership of numerous plots, cancellation of titles, injunctions and nullification of the 1st Defendant's 2017 registration. The 1st Defendant counterclaimed, seeking dismissal of the suit, a declaration that its own 2011 registration was void, and protection of the church properties. The court framed four issues: locus standi, ownership, and entitlement to relief by each side. It held that a society sues only through its office holders and found the Plaintiffs had locus standi. On ownership, it accepted the Registrar's evidence that the 1992 registration of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship was valid and that the erroneous number 15256 (belonging to FORD KENYA) was the Registrar's error, not the trustees' fault. The court found the suit properties were acquired by members and officials of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship on behalf of the church; trustees leaving the church cannot take its properties, and the Plaintiffs' registration of a similarly named society was an attempt to take church property. Fraud pleaded by the Plaintiffs was not strictly proved. Relying on section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act and the green cards, the court declared the 1st Defendant the lawful owner, dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit, allowed the counterclaim in part, issued a permanent injunction against the Plaintiffs, and ordered the Plaintiffs to bear the costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of the Plaintiffs

Holding

The Plaintiffs have locus standi as trustees of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship whose evidence was un-rebutted that they were trustees of that society.

Reasoning

The court held it trite that a society sues through its office holders. PEX 14 confirmed the Plaintiffs as office bearers of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship, and PW1's evidence that they were not trustees of the other similarly named society was unrebutted. Capacity was therefore established despite the similarity of names.

02

Ownership of the suit properties

Holding

The suit properties belong to Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship (now New Covenant Disciples Church), the 1st Defendant, which acquired them and is registered as proprietor.

Reasoning

The 1992 registration of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship was confirmed; the erroneous registration number 15256 (assigned to FORD KENYA) was a Registrar's error not attributable to the trustees. Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly acquired the properties for the church as members/officials; on leaving, the Plaintiffs could not take church property. Green cards showed ownership by the 1st Defendant, corroborated by the Registrar's evidence, and section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act vests absolute ownership in the registered proprietor.

p. 12
03

Proof of fraud

Holding

Fraud pleaded by the Plaintiffs was not proved, so the prayer for cancellation of titles failed.

Reasoning

Relying on Kinyanjui Kamau v George Kamau and Ndolo v Ndolo, the court applied the principle that fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities. The Registrar's evidence showed the title anomalies stemmed from the Registrar's own error, not fraud by the 1st Defendant, and the Plaintiffs' particulars were not proved.

04

Counterclaim

Holding

The 1st Defendant's counterclaim was allowed; it established its case on a balance of probabilities.

Reasoning

Having found the 1st Defendant lawful owner of the suit properties and that the Plaintiffs attempted to take church property by registering a similarly named society, the court granted the declaration of ownership and permanent injunction sought in the counterclaim, with costs to the 1st Defendant.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • A society can only sue or be sued through its office holders (trustees).
  • Registration of a person as proprietor of land vests absolute ownership in that person.
  • Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the 1st Defendants are the lawful owners of all the properties listed in the judgment
  2. 2.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from interfering, trespassing and selling all those properties
  3. 3.The Plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit; Constitution/statutory basis not expressly invoked in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nganga & 3 others (Suing as the Registered Trustees of Disciples of Christ Foundation Fellowship Church) v Joseph Kamau Mande, John Mwangi Kabicho, Gilbert Ndungu Ndirangu (Sued as the Registered Trustees of New Covenant Disciples Church) & another (Environment & Land Case 323 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 3542 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3542/eng@2024-04-30

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