Njuguna & 9 others (Suing as the Registered Trustees of Christian Outreach Ministries Worldwide) v Pesa (Civil Suit E417 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 155 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court struck out a church leadership dispute because the plaintiffs ignored the Societies Act's internal dispute process and had already filed a similar case in Siaya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is barred by sub judice (Section 6, Civil Procedure Act)
The suit is barred by sub judice; both this suit and Siaya CMCC No. E079 of 2024 concern the same facts, parties and converging reliefs, and the defendant was already an interested party in the earlier suit
The court applied the Supreme Court's three-tier test in the KNCHR case: more than one suit over the same subject matter, one instituted before the other, both pending before competent courts, and between the same parties or their representatives. The court found the two suits converge in the reliefs sought and that filing the later suit while aware of the earlier one amounted to abuse of process.
Whether the court lacked jurisdiction for failure to exhaust the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the Societies Act
Yes; the dispute as to officers of the registered society ought first to have been resolved internally or referred to the Registrar of Societies, and the suit was premature and misplaced
Relying on the Njuri Ncheke decision and the Karume principle that where a clear procedure for redress is prescribed by statute it must be strictly followed, the court held Section 18 of the Societies Act sets out a clear procedure for disputes as to officers of a society, which was neither exhausted internally nor referred to the Registrar, hence the court lacked jurisdiction and the suit was struck out.
Whether the preliminary objection passed the test of a proper preliminary objection
Yes; the objection was based on pure points of law and could be raised at any point of the proceedings
Applying the Mukisa Biscuit test, the court noted that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, must arise from the pleadings, and cannot succeed if any fact has to be ascertained or discretion exercised. The court found the objection herein passed as one based on pure law.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute provides an internal dispute resolution mechanism, that procedure must first be exhausted before a matter is filed in court; failure to exhaust the Societies Act mechanism under Section 18 deprives the court of jurisdiction over disputes as to officers of a registered society
- The sub judice rule under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act bars a later suit between the same parties over the same subject matter; filing a subsequent suit while a previous suit by the same party is pending constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14/04/2025 is upheld
- 2.The suit herein is struck out
- 3.The defendant/respondent shall have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court; objection founded on Section 18 of the Societies Act and Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna & 9 others (Suing as the Registered Trustees of Christian Outreach Ministries Worldwide) v Pesa (Civil Suit E417 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Suit No E417 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/155/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.