REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Petition 592 of 2012 COLUMBUS MAKOKHA SHIUNDU................................................................1ST PETITIONER ISAIAH MUSUNGU NAMBIKHWA................................................................. 2ND PETITIONER MARTIN K. MULAMA......................................................................................3RD PETITIONER DAVID ASHIAMA JUMA...................................................................................4TH PETITIONER MUSA CHICHOLE MAHERO...........................................................................5TH PETITIONER MWAJUMA NYAROTSI NAMATSI.................…............................................6TH PETITIONER JOHN WANINGU WERE................................................................................7TH PETITIONER IMMANUEL WERE WANINGU.......................................................................8TH PETITIONER RAPHAEL JUMA MATETE............................................................................9TH PETITIONER MUSA M MAKOKHA...................................................................................10TH PETITIONER AND PATRICK OKUKU.......................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT KENNEDY ECHESSA................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT GABRIEL ATOKO......................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT GEORGE AMBUCHE.................................................................................4TH RESPONDENT BASIL KHALUMI MISANGO...................................................................5TH RESPONDENT FRANCIS WASHIKA................................................................................6TH RESPONDENT ALPHONSE BWIRE.................................................................................7TH RESPONDENT GABRIEL ANAMANJIA...........................................................................8TH RESPONDENT
page 1 of 3
JUSTINA RAPANDO...............................................................................9TH RESPONDENT GREGORY MAKOKHA WERE.............................................................10TH RESPONDENT MUMIAS OUTGROWERS COMPANY (1998) LTD...........................11TH RESPONDENT VINCNENT SAMBULA.........................................................................12TH RESPONDENT AUGUSTINE SAKWA...........................................................................13TH RESPONDENT DAN MUSUKU......................................................................................14TH RESPONDENT CHARLES OKUKU...............................................................................15TH RESPONDENT FRANCIA BASIL KHALUMI ................................................................16TH RESPONDENT ALEXANDER WAMALILI....................................................................17TH RESPONDENT ALI MUTIMBA.......................................................................................18TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ............................................................19TH RESPONDENT RULING 1. This petition concerns the election of directors of Mumias Outgrowers Company (1998) Ltd. It is a public company that represents and promotes the interests of sugarcane framers within the Mumias Zone, Kakamega County. When this petition came up for directions, I directed counsel for the petitioners to show cause why this matter should not be transferred to the Kakamega High Court for hearing and disposal. 2. Prof Ojienda, S.C., for the petitioners contended that this matter is primarily against the Registrar of Companies, whose offices are situated in Nairobi and the case does not involve matters of taking evidence. According to counsel, the physical presence of the respondents is unnecessary as the matters are purely of a legal and constitutional nature. Mr Lutta, counsel for the company and some of the respondents, opposed the application primarily on the basis that the elections which are subject of the case are also the subject of ongoing litigation particularly in Kakamega HCCC NO. 122 of 2011 where the High Court has made several decisions on the matter. 3. In my view, the proper forum for the hearing of this case is in the Kakamega High Court. My decision is based on several reasons. First, the existence of Kakamega HCCC No 122 of 2011 and attendant litigation. This litigation may have a bearing and effect on these proceedings and it is proper that the judge in Kakamega should have regard to these proceedings. 4. Second, is the issue of access to justice which is a right protected under Article 48 of the Constitution. A case such as this is of particular public interest and where a company has at least 70,000 members, it is important that its members are able to attend court without the inconvenience of costs. The right of access to justice means that litigation is no longer a preserve of the lawyers and judge exchanging technical legal arguments but also involves the public who are able to follow legal proceedings affecting them at their convenience. 5. Thirdly, devolution of power is one of the national values and principles recognised under Article 10 and the convenience of otherwise of the Registrar of Companies must be subordinated to the right of access to justice and of public officers to attend to their duties outside their offices. The Registrar of
page 2 of 3
Companies as a public office is able to attend court in Kakamega. 6. I therefore order that this suit be and is hereby transferred to the High Court, Kakamega for hearing and disposal. Costs shall be in the petition. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 4th day of January, 2013 D.S. MAJANJA JUDGE Prof. Ojienda, S.C instructed by Prof. Tom Ojienda and Associates Advocates. Mr Lutta instructed by Lutta and Company Advocates for the 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th respondents.
page 3 of 3