[1994] KECA 68 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the dispute was clearly one among members of a co-operative society concerning the business of the society, specifically the allocation or sale of land. Section 80(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act expressly provides that such disputes must be resolved in the manner set out in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1994] KECA 68 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Kamau Njoroge; Respondent: Edgewood Farmers Co-operative Society; Respondent: Samuel M. Njoroge; Respondent: David Kimuya Muthomi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 174 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Cooperative Societies Disputes, Jurisdiction of High Court, Striking Out Suits
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Kamau Njoroge
Appellant
Edgewood Farmers Co-operative Society
Respondent
Samuel M. Njoroge
Respondent
David Kimuya Muthomi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear a dispute between members of a co-operative society concerning allocation or sale of land by the society.
- 2 Whether section 80(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in such disputes.
- 3 Whether the plaint was properly struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the dispute was clearly one among members of a co-operative society concerning the business of the society, specifically the allocation or sale of land. Section 80(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act expressly provides that such disputes must be resolved in the manner set out in the Act, not by the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The Court found nothing in the Constitution that prevents Parliament from legislating on how the High Court's jurisdiction is to be exercised, including limiting it to appellate jurisdiction in such matters. Therefore, the High Court was right to strike out the plaint for want of jurisdiction, and the appeal had no merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- The order of the High Court striking out the plaint with costs is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAKURU
CORAM: GACHUHI, OMOLO AND TUNOI, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 1992
BETWEEN
DAVID KAMAU NJOROGE .......................... APPELLANT
AND
EDGEWOOD FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ........ FIRST
RESPONDENT
SAMUEL M. NJOROGE ............................ SECOND
RESPONDENT
DAVID KIMUYA MUTHOMI ......................... THIRD RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a decree of the High C ourt of Kenya at Nakuru (Mr. Justice Barbara Tanui) dated 1st July, 1992 in H.C.C.C. NO. 61 OF 1992) ********************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
We are satisfied there is no merit in the appeal before us. The appellant is and was a member of Edgewood Farmers Cooperative Society, the 1st Respondent herein. The appellant alleged that he had entered into an agreement with the 1st Respondent over some piece of land which the 1st Respondent had agreed to sell him. The 1st Respondent then changed and allegedly sold the same piece of land to David Kimuya Muthomi, the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent was also a member of the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent, Samuel Njoroge, was The Chairman of the 1st Respondent. The Appellant purported to sue the three Respondents and the Respondents moved the High Court to strike out the suit on the ground that the Appellant was not entitled to bring the matter to the High Court but should have pursued his rights as set out in section 80 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The judge agreed with the Respondents and struck out the suit. The dispute was clearly one among members of the Co-operative Society and according to Section 80 (1) "any dispute concerning the business of a registered society," must be dealt with in the manner set out in the Act. The 1st Respondent was a farming society and selling or allocating land to its members was clearly among its business. Mr. Otachi Omwana for the Appellant contends that the High Court has jurisdiction because under the Constitution, that court has unlimited original civil and criminal jurisdiction and accordingly section 80 of Cap 490 could not deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction conferred on it by the constitution.
With respect we can find nothing in the constitution which would debar parliament from legislating on the manner in which the jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised. In Cap 490, that jurisdiction is to be exercised on appeal as provided in section 81 (2) of the Act and we can find nothing unconstitutional in this. The dispute here squarely fell within the provisions of section 80 (1) of Cap 490 and the learned judge was, with respect, right in ordering that the plaint be struck out with costs. This appeal fails and we order it to be dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 25th day of February, 1994.
J. M. GACHUHI
................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R. S. C. OMOLO
................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P. K. TUNOI
................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true
copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR