https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9231

Biama (Founder and Overseer Bishop of United Pentecost Evangelistic Crusades) v Ronoh (Civil Case E004 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9231 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9231 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kitale Civil Case E004 of 2026 RK Limo, J June 30, 2026 Between Isaack Ayabei Biama (Founder and Overseer Bishop of United Pentecost Evangelistic Crusades) Plaintiff and Philip Ronoh Defendant Ruling 1.The plaintiff herein has moved this court under the provisions of Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of Civil Procedure Act for the following prayers namely;a.Spentb.Spentc.That a temporary injunction be issued against the defendant or his agents/servants or anyone acting for or under him from holding himself as the head of United Pentecostal Evangelical Crusades and ordaining church ministers and generally usurping the powers and privileges of the plaintiff as the Overseer Bishop and Founder of the said church pending the hearing of this suit.d.That costs be provided by the defendant. 2.The applicant has filed the following grounds as the basis of his application namely;a.That the plaintiff/applicant is the founder of United Pentecostal Evangelistic Crusade Church registered under Societies Act.b.That the church has a guiding Constitution and By-laws executed in April 2013 and the same have not been amended.c.That the applicant is the Overseer Bishop charged with the responsibility of ordaining church ministers among other responsibilities and has ordained several church ministers including the defendant herein.d.That the defendant has intermeddled with the affairs of the church by;i.Unprocedurally and illegally calling for AGM on 30/12/2025 without meeting the requirements of the Societies Act and those of the Constitution of the church.ii.That he purported to amend the organization’s Constitution and By-laws without any colour of right, the consent of the members and the authority of the plaintiff.iii.Holding himself as the National Presiding Bishop of the church and usurping the powers and privileges of the plaintiff including ordaining church ministers.e.That the illegal/unlawful activities of the defendant have caused disunity, lack of transparency, infighting, lack of respect among faithful’s and a divided church.f.That unless the orders sought are granted the plaintiff stands to suffer great prejudice since the defendant will continue usurping his powers and privileges which could lead to collapse of the church to the detriment of thousands. 3.The applicant has supported the grounds with an affidavit he swore on 23/3/2026. 4.The applicant has majorly reiterated the above grounds and exhibited a copy of Registration Certificate and the Constitution and By-laws of the church. 5.In supplementary affidavit sworn on 15/6/2026 the applicant depones that he has no grudge against the defendant/respondent. That the church has had no AGM for over 10 years and that the one held on 31/12/2015 in his view was a sham because the registered members according to him were not invited. 6.He further avers that the Registrar gave them an opportunity for reconciliation which led to resolutions that leadership be retained with him being consecrated Archbishop of the church on 27/7/2016. 7.He denies knowledge of any subsequent elections in 2020 and 2025. 8.In his written submissions dated 15/6/2026 done through learned counsel Nzavi & Co Advocate, the plaintiff submits that there is dispute that he is the Founder of the church and was the Chairman of the church until 31/12/2025. 9.He contends that the 67 members who attended the AGM are ministers/pastors and the leaders of the church with registered members not being invited. 10.He submits that as the Archbishop of the church he is the head of the church and its Spiritual Leader with cut out function duties and responsibilities. He claims that the defendant is usurping those functions and responsibilities. 11.He claims that he has not been formerly notified of his retirement and that attaining the age of 70 years does not automatically operate as retirement. On that basis the plaintiff submits that he has established a prima facie case with a probability of success. 12.On irreparable loss, the plaintiff submits that the church he founded in 1975 now faces the risk of division, infighting and might collapse despite having done a lot of input in terms of time and resources and that the defendant’s conduct risks continuity. That the collapse of the church is likely to leave entire membership with no church and hence suffer from lack of spiritual nourishment which loss in his view cannot be quantified and/or cannot be compensated in damages. 13.He submits that by virtue of his position as Archbishop the balance of convenience tilts in his favour. He prays for protection by way of orders sought in this application to protect him and the membership of the church. 14.The defendant has opposed this application vide a replying affidavit sworn on 11/6/2026. 15.He avers that the orders sought herein in his view are vague and/or unspecific because the plaintiff has not given particulars of infighting, abuse of power or disrespect and hence the plaintiff’s claims in his view are unsubstantiated. 16.He avers that the plaintiff is a sour loser having been voted out during 2015 elections. He has exhibited the results of the elections showing him as the duly elected Chairman. 17.That having lost the said elections the plaintiff/applicant wrote a letter to Registrar of Societies vide a letter dated 7/1/2016 expressing his grievances. 18.That the Registrar sought to have the matter resolved amicably and as a result a reconciliatory meeting was held on 12/2/2016 under the leadership of Apostle Jonah Mwei. 19.That after reconciliation the convener wrote a letter to the Registrar through church’s secretary one Isaac Barkachai and he has exhibited a letter dated 3rd March 2016 to back up the claims. 20.That having been validly elected as Chairman/Bishop of the church in the elections of 2015, 2020 and 2025, his functions are well spelt out under Article 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the church Constitution. 21.He avers that granting the orders sought is tantamount to rendering the office of the Chairman/Bishop vacant. 22.He contends that the orders being sought herein are unclear whether its against him as an individual or the office of Chairman/Bishop. 23.That the Constitution expressly provides that in his absence his functions would be performed by his deputy which means the orders sought by the plaintiff will not serve his purposes. 24.That under Article 15(a) (i) of the Constitution of the church the retirement age is pegged at 70 years and that the plaintiff is not an exception to that provision. 25.That the church Constitution does not provide for an office of “Founder” as suggested by the plaintiff. 26.That the allegations of divisions in the church have not been substantiated and neither have the allegations of usurpation of responsibilities/duties. 27.He avers that the plaintiff seeks to injunct legally elected office bearers and in the process paralyze the operations of the church to the detriment of its members. 28.He contends that the applicant only intends to settle old scores after losing the elections of 2015. 29.He avers that the plaintiff attempted to adjourn elections in 2025 elections after sensing defeat but Electoral Board rejected the attempts because it contravened the Constitution of the church. 30.He prays that status quo be maintained for purposes of not disrupting the church functions. 31.This court has considered and laid out the application and the grounds advanced. I have also considered the opposition made by the respondent. This is basically an application for injunction. 32.An injunction as a remedy is a discretionary matter for a court. It is also an equitable remedy and there are 3 core principles set out in the case classicus of Giella –vs- Cassman Brown (1973). These principles have stood the test of time and they are as follows;i.A prima facie case.An applicant must demonstrate that he has an arguable case with probability of success and that the case is not frivolous or vexatious.ii.Irreparable harm.An applicant must demonstrate that he is likely to suffer loss or damage that cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages.iii.Balance of convenienceIf the court is in doubt in the establishment of the first two conditions above it will determine the matter on balance of convenience weighing both the likely inconvenience or hardships to both parties if the injunction is granted or not granted. 33.The above principles encompasses the 3 golden rules or triple test for grant of injunction in Kenya. 34.In this application the applicant contends that he is the founder member and the Archbishop of the church and therefore its spiritual leader. This position has been countered by the respondent who has sworn an affidavit and denied existence of a position of ‘Founder’ in the Constitution of the Church. 35.This court finds that the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is the current Archbishop of the church and/or elected to the position of a Bishop. He has exhibited a certificate dated 27/3/2016 showing his ordination but the respondent has cast doubts about his current status stating that for one he was voted out as a Bishop in the 2025 elections and two that he has attained retirement age. 36.This court is unable to make a finding now about the retirement. This is because the question on whether the plaintiff has attained retirement age is a question of fact that will be tried during trial. However having said that, this court finds the submissions by the applicant quite telling and almost a concession that he has indeed reached that age. He says that attaining the age of 70 does not operate as automatic retirement. That one has to be formerly notified. So the question lingering is, has he attained the retirement age and only awaiting a formal letter confirming that he is retired? This court may not at this stage determine that issue with certainty but what is clear to this court is that the claim by the plaintiff that he has established a prima facie case is negated by the retirement factor and clear provisions of Section 15(a) (i) of the By-laws of the church. The said provisions peg retirement age at 70 and it is mandatory. 37.This court further finds the claims of usurpation of functions/responsibilities by the defendant/respondent hangs in the air because the plaintiff has not demonstrated facts to support his allegations. On the contrary the respondent has shown that he is duly elected to perform certain functions and responsibilities. This court finds the respondent’s answer to those allegations to be cogent and precise. He says elections were conducted in 2015 where he was elected Bishop and the plaintiff protested. He has exhibited a letter to that effect and the attendant reconciliation. He further filed a defence and counterclaim which without the necessity to delve deep into it at this stage raises pertinent questions regarding the claim by the plaintiff that he has an arguable case with chances of success. On the contrary based on what is placed before me he appears to have a herculean task ahead. 38.This court finds that the plaintiff’s case and his application has failed the first hurdle in Giella Cassman Brown and I do not find it necessary to go into the 2nd test.In the premises this court finds no merit in the application dated 23/3/2026. The same is disallowed. Costs shall be in the main suit. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 30TH DAY OF UNE, 2026.HON JUSTICE R.K. LIMOKITALE HIGH COURTRuling delivered in open courtIn the presence ofNzavi for the plaintiff/applicantPhilip Ronoh the defendant in personNo appearance Isiaho for the defendantJoseph/Dorcas – court assistants