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 the judgment· [2026] KEELC 3485 (KLR)

Kishushe Ranching Co-operative Society Limited (Suing Through Danson Kidai Mwandoto, Chairman) v Mwangondi & others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E008 of 2026) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 3485 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 June 2026
2,371 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that disputes about running a cooperative society belong to the Co-operative Tribunal, no matter how the case is drafted.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondents raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th April 2026 against a Notice of Motion brought by Kishushe Ranching Cooperative Society Limited, suing through its Chairman Mr. Danson Kidai Mwandoto, which sought a raft of interlocutory orders: restraining a scheduled meeting, protecting the membership register and the Society's land from alienation, freezing bank accounts, restraining mining activities save under existing agreements, placing management under a committee upheld by a prior ruling, compelling production of a verified register, and implementing an Inquiry Report. The objection was founded on three grounds: lack of jurisdiction (the dispute belonging to the Co-operative Tribunal under section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act), sub judice in light of Co-operative Tribunal Case No. E920 of 2025, and abuse of process through forum shopping. The Court, applying the Mukisa Biscuit test, held that the jurisdictional ground was a pure point of law determinable on the pleadings. Characterising the dispute by its dominant character rather than its label, it found that every operative prayer concerned the internal governance, membership, meetings, officials and administration of the Society, and that the land and mining complaints were merely consequential on the contest for control. The doctrine of exhaustion required the Applicant to resort to the Co-operative Tribunal. The Court found it had no jurisdiction and, per the Lillian S principle, downed its tools. The sub judice and abuse of process grounds were declined as evidential questions unsuited to a preliminary objection, the Tribunal pleadings not being on the record. The objection was upheld, the Notice of Motion struck out for want of jurisdiction, each party directed to bear its own costs, and the file marked as closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the governance, membership and administration of a co-operative society

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction; the dispute falls within the exclusive competence of the Co-operative Tribunal under section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

Reasoning

Although the Court's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act covers land disputes, the Court must look at the substance of the claim rather than its label. Every operative prayer concerned the register, legitimacy of officials, meetings, control of funds and implementation of the Inquiry Report, i.e. internal governance of the society. The land and mining complaints were consequential upon the contest for control; no freestanding land cause remained. The doctrine of exhaustion (Karume, Muthinja) required recourse to the Tribunal.

p. 3
02

Whether the suit is sub judice Co-operative Tribunal Case No. E920 of 2025

Holding

Not conclusively determined; the ground was evidential and unsuitable for a preliminary objection.

Reasoning

Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act would bar the suit if the issues were directly and substantially the same. However, the Tribunal pleadings were not on the record, so the necessary comparison could not be made on assertion alone. The ground strayed towards a question of fact, inconsistent with the Mukisa Biscuit test. Given the finding on jurisdiction, the Court declined to determine the point.

p. 4
03

Whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of process through forum shopping

Holding

No finding of abuse made; the charge depended on pleadings not before the Court and could not be established as a pure point of law.

Reasoning

While a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same party is an abuse of process (Muchanga Investments), the allegation required comparison of pleadings not before the Court. The point was unnecessary given the jurisdictional finding, though the Court observed that a litigant who has invoked the Tribunal should not pursue the same controversy in a second forum.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A court must look beyond the label affixed to a claim and discern its true nature and dominant character; drafting cannot confer jurisdiction the law withholds.
  • Where the dominant character of a dispute is the internal governance and administration of a co-operative society, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Tribunal under section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act, and the doctrine of exhaustion requires the litigant to resort to that forum.
  • A ground of preliminary objection requiring comparison of pleadings not on the record cannot be determined as a pure point of law.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 14th April 2026 is upheld.
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  3. 3.Each party shall bear own costs.
  4. 4.This file is hereby marked as closed.
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kishushe Ranching Co-operative Society Limited (Suing Through Danson Kidai Mwandoto, Chairman) v Mwangondi & others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E008 of 2026)  (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 3485 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3485/eng@2026-06-09

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