Gospel of God Church International (SOC./45700) & another v Gospel of God Church (SOC./7670) & 3 others

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO. E665 OF 2024** **IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29(A), 29(C), 37, 39, 40, 73, 165, 258, 259 AND 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE SOCIETIES ACT CAP 108 LAWS OF KENYA AND ITS VARIOUS AMENDMENTS, [ACT NO. 4 OF 1968, ACT NO. 10 OF 1997, LEGAL NOTICE 71 OF 2003, ACT NO. 19 OF 2015, LEGAL NOTICE 105 OF 2017]** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE SOCIETIES RULES, ITS VARIATIONS AND AMENDEMENTS [LEGAL NOTICE 62 OF 1968, LEGAL NOTICE 243 OF 1988, LEGAL NOTICE 84 OF 1997, LEGAL NOTICE 71 OF 2003, LEGAL NOTICE 259 OF 2021]** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: RESCISSION, CANCELLATION, RE-REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY ALLEGEDLY REFERRED TO AS GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670)** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL OF NAME CHANGE OF SOCIETY NO. GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700)** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: DISPUTE ON OWNERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE NAME GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH AND OWNERSHIP OF THE EFFECTS AND ASSETS BELONGING TO GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH** **-BETWEEN-** **GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH** **INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) ……...…….................. 1ST PETITIONER** **TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD** **CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) …………. 2ND PETITIONER** **-VERSUS-** **GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) ................... 1ST RESPONDENT** **TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD** **CHURCH (SOC./7670) ……………………………..…... 2ND RESPONDENT** **REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KENYA ......................... 3RD RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL .................................................. 4TH RESPONDENT** **RULING** **Introduction** 1. **The Petition** dated **29th November 2024** describes the parties as follows: 2. The 1st Petitioner herein GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) is a society duly registered as such under the Societies Act Cap, Laws of Kenya. 3. The 2nd Petitioner herein TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700 is the registered trustees of the 1st Petitioner. 4. The 1st Respondent GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) is a society said to be registered under the Societies Act, Laws of Kenya. 5. The 2nd Respondent TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) are the trustees of the 1st Respondent herein. 6. The 3rd Respondent REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KENYA herein is the Registrar of Societies responsible for maintenance and registration of the record of societies in Kenya. 7. The 4th Respondent herein is the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya duly authorized representative of the government as set out under Article 156 of the Constitution. 8. The Petition involves a legal dispute between the Gospel of God Church International (SOC./45700) and its registered trustees against Gospel of God Church (SOC./7670), its trustees, the Registrar of Societies, and the Attorney General concerning the lawful registration, ownership and exclusive right to use the name "Gospel of God Church," alongside the entitlement to property and assets acquired under that identity. 9. The factual background is that The Gospel of God Church (SOC. 7670) was introduced in Kenya in 1968 and was initially exempted from registration. Over the years, it acquired property and established a strong presence, but leadership disputes and government intervention in 1985 led to the expulsion of non-Kenyan leaders. Local members elected new officials in July 1985, but shortly afterward, the Registrar rescinded the church’s exemption, effectively deregistering it. Attempts by the local leadership to re-register or appeal were consistently rejected between 1985 and 1987, leaving the society legally non-existent. 10. The Petitioners aver that they were originally registered as, “Glorious Gospel of God Church of Kenya” under registration No. SOC. 45700 in 2004 and later renamed “Gospel of God Church International.” That this entity acquired assets and functioned lawfully until 2009, when the Registrar reinstated the previously deregistered SOC. 7670 without involving the 1985 local leadership. This reinstatement created conflicts over the rightful use of the church’s name, culminating in directives in 2024 requiring SOC. 45700 to revert to its former name or face cancellation. The Petitioners argue that these directives violate their constitutional rights, including fair administrative action, property rights, equality, and legitimate expectation, and they seek judicial review orders, declarations of exclusive rights to the name, and compensation for damages. **The Petition** 1. **The Petition** is dated **29th November 2024** and seeks the following Declarations and Orders:- 2. ***A declaration that the Petitioners herein have the sole and exclusive rights to use, apply and deploy the use of the name Gospel of God church;*** 3. ***A mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued stopping the 1st and 2nd Respondent herein from using, applying and deploying the use of the name Gospel of God church;*** 4. ***The Honourable Court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court to quash the decisions and Rulings by the 3rd Respondent issued on 20th August 2024 and 18th October 2024;*** 5. ***The Honourable court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review order of Prohibition to prohibit the Respondents or any of their agents, officers, or any person acting on behalf of the Respondents from implementing the decisions issued on 18th October 2024;*** 6. ***The Honourable court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review order of an order of mandamus directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents herein to comply with their own rulings and decisions as communicated on 2nd October 1985, 24th February 1987, 21st April 1987 dismissing and or denying the appeal filed for and on behalf of leadership of Gospel of God church SOC 7670 elected on 21st July 1985;*** 7. ***A declaration that the Petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair trial and fair hearing as guaranteed by Articles 25 (c) and 50 (1) & (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 have been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;*** 8. ***A declaration that the Petitioner’s constitutional right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed by Article 27 (1), (2), (3) & (5) of the constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;*** 9. ***A declaration that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to Access to Information as guaranteed by Article 35 (1) (b) of the constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;*** 10. ***A declaration that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to fair administrative action as guaranteed by Article 47(1) & (2) of the Constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;*** 11. ***A declaration that the Petitioners’ right to legitimate expectation has been infringed by the Respondent institutions;*** 12. ***An order for full compensation for General and Aggravated damages;*** 13. ***Costs of this Petition;*** 14. ***Interest on (f) and (g) above (sic)*** 15. ***Any other or further relief as this Honourable court may deem fit to grant*** 16. The Petition is further supported by the sworn affidavit of Francis Mucheru Mwangi, the General Secretary of Gospel of God Church International (SOC. 45700), dated evenly with the Petition. The deponent outlines the history of the original church (SOC. 7670), which was introduced in Kenya in 1968, exempted from registration on 26th August 1968 and subsequently acquired substantial land and property in Nairobi and registered a trust deed. 17. The deponent details how government interventions in 1984 and 1985 resulted in the ordered departure and deportation of the church’s foreign leadership. Following these developments, Kenyan church members conducted an emergency election on 21st July 1985, electing local leadership. However, on 23rd August 1985, the Assistant Registrar of Societies rescinded the church’s exemption from registration under ***Section 13 of the Societies Act***, a decision published via Gazette Notice No. 3835 on 30th August 1985. 18. He swears that subsequent efforts and formal appeals between October 1985 and April 1987 by the elected Kenyan leadership to re-register the society were repeatedly dismissed by both the Registrar and the Attorney General, who explicitly noted that the entity no longer existed in law. 19. It is stated that to maintain legal operations, the same local leadership registered “Glorious Gospel of God Church of Kenya” (SOC. 45700) on 7th July 2004 and subsequently secured approval from the Registrar on 22nd March 2005, to change the name to “Gospel of God Church International”. 20. The deponent notes that the church created new registered trusts and continued acquiring property under this name. Despite previous final rejections, on 11th November 2009, the Registrar reinstated the deregistered SOC. 7670 without consulting the 1985 elected leadership or issuing a gazette notice. 21. It is deposed that this generated conflicting regulatory directives, culminating in decisions on 20th August 2024 and 18th October 2024, where the Registrar ordered SOC. 45700 to revert to “Glorious Gospel of God Church” within 30 days or face cancellation. 22. The deponent asserts that the Registrar’s actions and directives violate the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to a fair trial and fair hearing under ***Articles 25 and 50,*** equality and non-discrimination under ***Article 27,*** access to information under ***Article 35***, protection of property rights over their registered name under ***Article 40***, and fair administrative action under ***Article 47***. 23. The deponent avers that the Registrar breached the Petitioners’ legitimate expectation, that SOC. 7670 had ceased to exist in law and that SOC. 45700 held the exclusive right to the name. It is their prayer that the Court should grant the prayers in the Petition to prevent substantial injustice. 24. Simultaneous with the Petition, the Petitioners also filed a Notice of Motion Application, seeking urgent court orders to certify the matter as urgent and issue temporary injunctions and conservatory orders. Specifically, the Petitioners are seeking to stay an administrative decision issued on 18th October 2024, by the Registrar of Societies and communicated on 8th November 2024 and to stop the Registrar of Societies and the Attorney General from deregistering, cancelling, or rescinding the 1st Petitioner’s registration or forcing them to revert to their former name, ‘Glorious Gospel of God Church’, pending the hearing and determination of the main Petition. **Responses** 1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, Grounds of Opposition and a Replying Affidavit all in opposition to the petition and the Notice of motion.The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ **Grounds of Opposition** aredated **4th December 2024** and seek to have the Petition and Motion dismissed on the following grounds: 2. ***THAT the instant application together with the petition filed herein is not only misconceived and bad in law but also incompetent as it has failed to set out with reasonable degree of precision that of which the Petitioners complains, provisions said to have been infringed or violated and the manner in which they are alleged to have been infringed or violated as was enunciated in the celebrated case of Anarita Karimi - Versus-Republic (No.1) (1979 1 KLR 154 and Mumo Matemu - Versus-Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Civil Appeal No.290 of 2012(2013), simply put, the petition filed herein fails the specificity test.*** 3. ***THAT the petitioners have not exhausted other remedies as provided by the Societies Act. Hence, the Notice of Motion Application and Petition herein is premature.*** 4. ***THAT Section 15 of the Societies Act provides for an appeal to this Honourable Court against the decision of the Cabinet Secretary and not a Notice of Motion Application and/or Petition who ought to have heard the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.*** 5. ***THAT the petitioners no longer exist in the eyes of the law as communicated to them, that their certificate had been cancelled vide a letter by the Registrar of Societies dated 1.8.2005, which registrar’s decision has never been appealed against as per Section 15 of the Societies Act.*** 6. ***THAT the instant Notice of Motion application and petition herein amounts to an abuse of the court process as it fails to appreciate that matters averred by the applicants largely forms what should be their grounds of appeal to the cabinet secretary against the Registrar’s decision. Thus, the Notice application and Petition should be dismissed with costs.*** 7. **The 1st and 2nd Respondents** also filed a **Notice of Preliminary Objection** dated **19th February 2025** seeking to have the Noice of Motion and Petition struck out entirely on the following grounds: 8. ***THAT Section 15 of the Societies Act provides for an appeal to this Honourable Court against the decision of the Cabinet Secretary and not a Notice of Motion Application and/or Petition who ought to have heard the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.*** 9. ***THAT the petitioners no longer exist in the eyes of the law as communicated to them, that their certificate had been cancelled vide a letter by the Registrar of Societies dated 1.8.2005, which registrar’s decision has never been appealed against as per Section 15 of the Societies Act.*** 10. The 1st and 2nd Respondents further filed a joint **Replying Affidavit** sworn on **7th May 2025** by Rev. Paul Ruto Cheboi, the National Organizing Secretary and a trustee of the 1st Respondent (Gospel of God Church, SOC. 7670), in opposition to the Petitioners’ Notice of Motion and Petition. He raises strong preliminary and legal objections to the Petitioners’ *locus standi*, asserting that the Petitioners do not legally exist. 11. The deponent points out that Pastor Francis Mucheru claimed to be the legal Secretary General without producing a confirmed list of national office bearers or a valid registration certificate. He highlights that the Registrar of Societies cancelled the 1st Petitioner’s certificate on 1st August 2005, which decision was never appealed under ***Section 15 of the Societies Act.*** 12. He deposes that in ***Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011***, Justice C.K. Nzili explicitly ruled on 15th November 2023, that the Petitioners ceased to exist in law as of 1st August 2005. That the Petitioners were also criminalized for operating an unregistered church vide Meru Chief Magistrates’ Court ***Criminal Case No. E252 of 2025***, confirming that they are total strangers to the court and lack legal capacity. 13. It is further contended in deposition that the Petition is premature, unmerited and an abuse of court process for failing to exhaust available statutory remedies. The deponent asserts that the Petitioners failed to pursue an administrative appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within 30 days of the Registrar’s ruling as required by ***Section 15(b) of the Societies Act***, and that neither did they appeal directly under ***Section 18.*** 14. He states that ***Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act*** strictly bars judicial review before internal appeal mechanisms are exhausted. Additionally, he contends the Petition fails to meet the constitutional standard set in ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic*** and ***Mumo Matemu***, as it lists broad constitutional provisions without providing specific details or evidence of how rights were infringed. 15. Detailing the history of the dispute, the deponent explains that the 1st Respondent was granted a certificate of exemption from registration No. 1807 in 1968 and has operated worldwide. That in 1985, unprocedural cancellation occurred amid wrangles orchestrated by a Meru splinter group seeking to seize church property. That while the 1st Respondent’s appeal was pending, this splinter group registered the ‘Glorious Gospel of God Church’ on 7th July 2004 and amended its name on 22nd March 2005, to ‘Gospel of God Church International’ to deceptively grab the 1st Respondent’s assets. 16. He states that following the 1st Respondent’s formal protest on 20th June 2005, the Registrar ruled on 1st August 2005 that the name was unavailable and ordered the Petitioners to revert to their former name. Subsequently, on 11th November 2009, the Registrar officially reinstated the 1st Respondent’s exemption. 17. It is pleaded that despite its deregistered status, the splinter group fraudulently grabbed and transferred church land to a third party in 2011, triggering **Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011,** where the court ultimately affirmed the Petitioners’ non-existence. That when the 1st Respondent discovered in April 2024 that the Petitioners were still illegally using the revoked name, they lodged complaints with the police and the Registrar. 18. It is stated that although the Registrar issued a directive on 20th August 2024, acknowledging a violation of ***Section 11 of the Societies Act*** and suggesting alternative dispute resolution, the 1st Respondent appealed the ruling to the Attorney General to demand full cancellation, which appeal is said to remain pending hearing before the Cabinet Secretary/Attorney General. 19. The deponent swears that the Petitioners filed this petition in bad faith to sabotage those ongoing administrative appeal proceedings and urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs to be borne personally by Francis Mucheru Mwangi. 20. The 3rd and 4th Respondents (the Registrar of Societies and the Attorney General respectively, filed a joint response through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 8th September 2025 by Registrar of Societies Teresia Gathagu in which the Registrar states that the core dispute between the 1st Petitioner and the 1st Respondent centers on which entity holds the right to use the name ‘Gospel of God Church’. She states that as the official custodian of records, she confirms that the 1st Petitioner, Gospel of God Church International (SOC 45700), is a duly registered society under the Societies Act. 21. The Registrar further states that official records contain a legally recognized society named "Gospel of God" (SOC 7670) but that there is no society registered under the specific name ‘Gospel of God Church (SOC 7670)’ as claimed by the 1st Respondent. That according to the filed records and attached exhibits, Gospel of God Church International was issued Certificate of Registration No. 23742 on 22nd March 2005. In contrast, Gospel of God (SOC 7670) formerly known as African Gospel Church was granted Exemption Certificate No. 1867 on 26th August 1968. 22. The Registrar affirms that both Gospel of God Church International and Gospel of God were lawfully registered in accordance with procedural requirements. Consequently, both entities hold a legitimate expectation that their registration statuses will remain protected. The Registrar urges the Court not to issue any orders altering the registration status of either society, maintaining that both are operating lawfully within the provisions of the Societies Act. 23. Rebutting the 3rd and 4th Respondents’ response, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a further replying affidavit sworn on **20th October 2025** by Rev. Paul Ruto Cheboi, the National Organizing Secretary and trustee of the 1st Respondent ("Gospel of God Church"), in which he deposes that the 1st Respondent is the only legally recognized entity entitled to the church’s identity and its multi-billion shillings property portfolio. He states that the church was exempted from registration under ***Section 10 of the Societies Act*** on 20th August 1968 and has maintained continuous existence ever since. 24. That a 1985 attempt by a splinter faction to take over the leadership failed and although the Registrar purported to cancel the church’s status, the 1st Respondent appealed under ***Section 15 of the Societies Act***, legally preserving its status as a lawful society pending determination. 25. The deponent directly impugns the 3rd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit sworn by Teresia Gathungu, labelling its contents as misleading, economical with the truth and devoid of legal backing. The deponent argues that the Registrar committed a fundamental error of law by registering the Petitioners’ splinter group "Glorious Gospel of God Church" and subsequently approving its name change to "Gospel of God Church International" in 2005. This process, it is contended, directly violated ***Section 11 of the Societies Act***, which prohibits registering societies with identical or deceptively similar names. 26. In response to the 3rd Respondent’s assertion of ‘legitimate expectation’ or lawful standing for the 1st Petitioner, the deponent contends that a registration which is void *ab initio* cannot generate legitimate expectations. He states that the Registrar had already formally revoked the Petitioner’s name change on 1st August 2005 and ordered them to revert to their original name and that because the Petitioners never appealed that 2005 ruling, the Environment and Land Court in Meru ELC No. 114 of 2011 and subsequent administrative rulings, including letters in 2011, 2024 and 2025 confirmed that the 1st Petitioner ceased to exist in the eyes of the law as of 2nd August 2005. 27. The deponent strongly criticizes the 3rd Respondent and accuses her of shifting goalposts and taking an evasive stance. He points out the contradiction in the Registrar’s position and states that the 3rd Respondent has consistently communicated with and addressed the 1st Respondent as "Gospel of God Church," yet now claims in its affidavit that the 1st Respondent does not legally exist. 28. He asserts that having repeatedly recognized the 1st Respondent and acted upon its complaints over the years, the Registrar is legally estopped from changing its position at the eleventh hour. 29. The deponent rejects the 3rd Respondent’s recommendation that both societies be allowed to coexist or seek court redress. The deponent argues that by inviting the court to allow both entities to use identical names, the Registrar is asking the Court to blatantly ignore ***Section 11 of the Societies Act***. The deponent accuses the 3rd Respondent of attempting to cover up its past administrative errors, sabotage the pending appeal and collude with the Petitioners to unlawfully resurrect an entity that has been legally extinct for nearly two decades. 30. Finally, the 1st Respondent notes that independent law enforcement findings contradict the 3rd Respondent’s position. That investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), confirmed that the 1st Petitioner does not exist in law, leading to criminal charges against its purported officials in CMCR. No. E252 of 2025. That because the 1st Respondent holds prior registration dating back to 1968 and the 3rd Respondent’s current averments are legally baseless, the 1st Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs. 31. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by way of written submissions. **The Petitioners’ Submissions** 1. The Petitioners’ written submissions are dated **1st July 2025** in which Counsel highlights the following issues for determination: ***whether the 3rd and 4th respondent infringed on the rights of the 1st and 2nd Petitioners;*** *What is the procedure for the rescission of a society and the procedure for appealing rescission decision in the year 1985-1987;* *What is the procedure for refusal to re-register a society in the year 1985-1987;* *What’s the procedure for registration and name change of the 1st petitioner; and the decisions by the 3rd Respondent after 1987;* ***What are the implications of the rescission, refusal to register, registration of glorious gospel church of Kenya and the approval of the name change and whether the preliminary objection is merited?*** 1. The Petitioners invoke ***Articles 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29(a), 29(c), 35, 37, 39, 40, 47, 50, 73, 165, 258, 259, and 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, alongside the Societies Act (Cap 108) [Act No. 4 of 1968, Act No. 10 of 1997, L.N. 71/2003, Act No. 19 of 2015, L.N. 105/2017] and the Societies Rules [L.N. 62/1968, L.N. 243/1988, L.N. 84/1997, L.N. 71/2003, L.N. 259/2021].*** 2. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 3rd and 4th Respondents violated their constitutional rights under ***Article 25(c)*** on non-derogable right to fair trial, ***Article 50(1)*** on the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, ***Article 27*** on equality and freedom from discriminationand ***Article 47*** on the right to fair administrative action. 3. Emphasizing the principles of judicial independence and impartiality under ***Articles 10(2)(b), 20(4),*** and ***159 of the Constitution***, Counsel for the Petitioners relies on several cases namely-***Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR (quoting R v Gough), Attorney-General v. Anyang’ Nyong’o & Others [2007] 1 E.A. 12, Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465, Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd v Lannon and others, Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others [2013] eKLR,*** and ***Gachuri v Attorney General & another; Kenya Judges Welfare Association & another (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E0304 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1632 (KLR)*** to establish that the 3rd Respondent demonstrated apparent bias and procedural unfairness. 4. Specifically, Counsel argues that the 3rd Respondent made unilateral administrative decisions, including the 2009 re-registration of Soc. 7670, a 2005 direction requiring name reversion, a non-conclusive ruling on 20th August 2024 and an 18th October 2024 decision reversing prior findings upon an improper appeal without serving notice, inviting submissions, or issuing summonses to the Petitioners, in violation of natural justice principles highlighted in ***Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 others v Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 others, Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others Ex Parte Archdiocese of Nairobi Kenya Registered Trustees (St. Joseph Mukasa Catholic Church Kahawa West) [2018] eKLR, Onyango Oloo vs. Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456,*** and ***Ridge vs. Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66.*** 5. Regarding ***Sections 4*** and ***7(2)(a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act (Act No. 35 of 2015),*** as well as ***Section 12*** thereof, the Petitioners cite ***Muigana & 16 others v County Government of Nyandarua (Petition E007 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 960 (KLR)*** referencing ***Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage and Culture & 3 others [2016] KLR*** and ***Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467*** to argue that administrative decisions must be supported by adequate, intelligible and rational reasons linked to the evidence. 6. They urge that under ***Section 9*** and ***Section 10 of the Societies Act (Cap 108, 1968), Soc. 7670*** it was granted an exemption from registration on 26th August 1968. However, pursuant to ***Section 13 of the Societies Act***, the Registrar rescinded this exemption on 23rd August 1985, as formally published in Gazette Notice No. 3835 on 30th August 1985. 7. It is submitted that following an appeal under ***Section 15 of the Societies Act,*** the Minister, 4th Respondent herein affirmed the rescission on 2nd October 1985. That subsequently, the Registrar issued a refusal to re-register Soc. 7670 on 24th February 1987, under ***Section 11(2) of the Societies Act*** and the Minister dismissed the subsequent appeal on 21st April 1987, thereby exhausting all statutory appeal mechanisms and legally extinguishing Soc. 7670 as an existing entity. 8. Counsel details that on 11th November 1987, the Petitioners’ leadership-initiated steps to register a new entity, leading to the issuance of Certificate of Registration No. 23742 for "Glorious Gospel Church of Kenya" on 7th July 2004, under ***Sections 9 and 10 of the Societies Act*** as amended in 1997. That following an Annual General Meeting resolution on 18th March 2005, the Registrar approved a change of name to "Gospel of God Church International" (Soc. 45700) on 22nd March 2005, pursuant to ***Section 20 of the Societies Act (1997) and Rule 12(2) of the Societies Rules***. 9. Counsel for the Petitioners argues that because Soc. 7670 had ceased to exist in 1987, Soc. 45700 was the first entity lawfully registered in time. Drawing analogies from corporate law limitation periods and land registration principles, the Petitioners cite ***John Blasious Ogati Matundura of Gusii Mwalimu Investment v Attorney General [2016] eKLR***, referencing ***Section 339(6) of the Companies Act, Cap 486*** and ***Section 912 of the Companies Act, No. 17 of 2015***, ***Nakuru High Court*** ***Civil Case No. 37 of 2013 [2014] eKLR***, ***Jackson N. Wachuga v Eastern Kitui Stores Limited [2008] eKLR,*** and ***Isaiah Nyabuti Onchonga v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd & another [2020] eKLR*** to assert that the 3rd Respondent lacked statutory power or jurisdiction to administratively ‘re-register’ or ‘resuscitate’ a defunct society 18 years later in 2009. 10. Addressing non-discrimination under ***Article 27 of the Constitution*** and ***Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)***, Counsel invokes ***Tukero ole Kina v Attorney General & another [2019] eKLR citing Nelson Andayi Havi vs Law Society of Kenya & 3 Others, Petition No. 607 of 2017 [2018] eKLR*** and ***Nyarangi & 3 Others v Attorney General [2008] KLR 688.*** They argue that the 3rd and 4th Respondents subjected the Petitioners to unconstitutional differential treatment by rejecting their lawful administrative applications while illegally entertaining out-of-time appeals and re-registration requests from unknown individuals claiming to act for Soc. 7670. 11. Consequently, Counsel urges the Court to exercise its authority under ***Article 165 of the Constitution*** to quash the 3rd Respondent’s decisions issued in 2009, on 20th August 2024 and on 18th October 2024 and to affirm Soc. 45700’s exclusive right to the name and assets of “Gospel of God Church”. **The Respondents’ Submissions** 1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ written submissions dated **22nd July 2025** are filed in opposing the Petition, the Notice of Motion and in support of the Preliminary Objection of 19th February 2025. Counsel submits on the Preliminary Objection, relying on ***Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696*** and ***Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Jane Cheperenger & 2 Others [2015] eKLR***, and urges the Court to determine the preliminary objection first, arguing that it properly raises threshold jurisdictional questions regarding the Petitioners lack of legal capacity, non-exhaustion of statutory remedies and violation of the doctrines of ripeness and constitutional avoidance. 2. Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the 1st Petitioner does not exist in the eyes of the law and lacks *locus standi* to institute the proceedings. They reference the Registrar of Societies’ ruling letter dated 1st August 2005 (annexure “FM-39”) and follow-up communication dated 8th June 2011, which established that the name "Gospel of God Church International" was registered in direct contravention of ***Section 11 of the Societies Act (Cap 108)*** due to deceptive similarity with the pre-existing 1st Respondent. 3. It is submitted that the Registrar revoked the 1st Petitioner’s name change on 1st August 2005 ordering it to revert to its former name ("Glorious Gospel of God Church"). Because the Petitioners never appealed this revocation, the 1st Petitioner legally ceased to exist as of 1st August 2005. Citing *Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011*, the Respondents highlight that Justice C.K. Nzili held in his judgment delivered on 15th November 2023 at paragraphs 65, 68, 69 & 70 that the 1st Petitioner has been legally non-existent since 1st August 2005. 4. Regarding the 2nd Petitioner’s standing, the Respondents submit that its Certificate of Incorporation as a trustee (annexure FM-42) dated 19th September 2007, is null and void *ab initio* because it purported to incorporate a trusteeship for an entity that was already defunct. 5. Additionally, that under ***Section 41 and Section 41(2) of the Societies Act (Cap 108)***, unincorporated bodies and registered societies cannot sue in their own name without valid written authorization for elected officials to represent them. In support, the 1st and 2nd Respondents cite ***Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims (SUPKEM) & another v Registrar of Societies; Omar & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Judicial Review E104 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1320 (KLR)*** and ***Law Society of Kenya v Commissioner of Lands & Others (Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 464 of 2000),*** asserting that the Petition is incurably defective and cannot be saved by **Article 159 of the Constitution**. 6. Counsel further submits that the Petition is premature and offends the doctrine of exhaustion under ***Section 15 of the Societies Act (Cap 108)*** and ***Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act (Act No. 35 of 2015***). Minute 2 of the Petitioners’ council meeting dated 1st January 2024 (annexure FM-1) confirms that their main grievance is the Registrar’s ruling dated 20th August 2024. That under ***Section 15 (1) (b) and Section 15(2) of the Societies Act (Cap 108)*** any party aggrieved by the Registrar’s decision regarding refusal, cancellation, or suspension must first appeal to the Cabinet Secretary/Minister within thirty days and can only approach the Court on a subsequent appeal within thirty days of the Minister’s decision. 7. That by bypassing this mandatory internal review process without seeking an exemption under ***Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act***, the Petition was instituted prematurely, as was held in ***Willis Ocholla v Mary Ndege and Maricus Otieno Okwayo v George Owenge Aluoch [2017] eKLR*** interpreting ***Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012)***. 8. Additionally, the 1st and 2nd Respondents argue that the Petition fails to establish a genuine constitutional issue and breaches ***Rule 10(2) of the Constitution*** ***of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (Mutunga Rules).*** Citing ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Attorney General (No. 1) [1979] KLR 154*** as applied in ***Amos Kiumo & 19 Others v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government, Meru Petition No. 16 of 2013***, they emphasize that a constitutional petition must state with precision the exact provisions infringed and the manner of infringement. 9. Citing ***Board of Governors, Moi High School Kabarak & another v Malcolm Bell (Supreme Court Petitions Nos. 6 and 7 of 2013)*** and ***Eric Wambua Muli & another v Prime Bank Limited & 3 others [2017] eKLR,*** the 1st and 2nd Respondents contend that the dispute is a private civil or commercial dispute over a church name that belongs in a civil court or before the Cabinet Secretary, rather than a constitutional division. 10. Finally, the 1st and 2nd Respondents argue that the Petitioners are not entitled to equitable remedies because their registration violated ***Section 11 and Section 11(2)(f)(i) of the Societies Act (Cap 108)***, which bars registering a society with a name so similar to an existing one as to deceive the public. Citing ***Beiersdorf AG v Emurchem Products Limited (Milimani HCCC No. 559 of 2002)*** and ***Republic v Registrar of Societies [2008] eKLR,*** the Respondents assert that adding the word "International" failed to create a meaningful distinction from the 1st Respondent, which was originally exempted under Certificate No. 1807 on 20th August 1968. 11. They submit that the Petitioners are trying to joyride on the goodwill of the original church, breaching the legal principle that no party should benefit from its own wrong. The 1st and 2nd Respondents pray that the Petition be struck out or dismissed with costs. 12. **The 3rd Respondent (Registrar of Societies) and 4th Respondent (Attorney General)** submitted on their written submissions dated **23rd January 2026** in response to the Petition dated 29th November 2024 and the Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st Respondent. Counsel emphasizes that the Registrar of Societies exercises her mandate under the Societies Act (Cap 108) to register, regulate and maintain all records of societies in Kenya and that according to official state records, the 1st Petitioner, Gospel of God Church International (Soc. 45700), is a duly registered society pursuant to the Societies Act (Cap 108), having been issued Certificate of Registration No. 23742 on 22nd March 2005. 13. Furthermore, that official records confirm that there is another lawfully registered society under the name Gospel of God (Soc. 7670), which received Certificate of Exemption from Registration No. 1867 on 26th August 1968. 14. The State Counsel submits that the 1st Respondent Gospel of God Church (Soc. 7670) is not recognized in the records of the Registrar of Societies, as no entity has ever been registered under that specific name. that because the registered entity is “Gospel of God (Soc. 7670)” and not “Gospel of God Church (Soc. 7670)”, the name “Gospel of God Church” should not be a subject of contest between the Petitioners and the 1st Respondent. 15. It is submitted that neither society holds exclusive statutory entitlement to that exact name and consequently, Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents argue that the Petition and all subsequent pleadings filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents are materially defective and incompetent for introducing entities namely Gospel of God Church (Soc. 7670) and Trustees of Gospel of God Church (Soc. 7670) that are strangers, legally non-existent, and lack *locus standi*. 16. Counsel submits that the result of these status defects is that the mandatory injunction sought by the Petitioners to stop the 1st and 2nd Respondents from using the contested name cannot be issued against non-existent entities. Similarly, the Court is urged to strike out the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th February 2025, Grounds of Opposition dated 4th December 2024 and Replying Affidavit sworn on 7th May 2025 as nullities ab initio. 17. Counsel asserts that both Gospel of God Church International (Soc. 45700) and Gospel of God (Soc. 7670) are lawfully registered entities with a legitimate expectation that their status will not be altered. They urge the court not to issue orders modifying the registration status of either entity under the Societies Act (Cap 108). 18. Finally, regarding the administrative proceedings, Counsel confirms that an appeal to the Attorney General was lodged on 27th August 2024 by Mugo & Associates Advocates (Ref: MA/GGC/027/29) pursuant to ***Section 15 of the Societies Act (Cap 108)***, which mandates that appeals from orders of the Registrar of Societies be determined by the Minister/Attorney General. They urge that because the instant Petition was filed before that statutory appeal could be heard, the appeal was held in abeyance and remains unheard. 19. Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents clarifies that the Registrar’s letter dated 18th October 2024 was merely the Registrar’s internal opinion rather than a formal determination of the appeal by the Attorney General and that because both parties were not heard before it was issued, its contents are merely persuasive rather than binding. Consequently, Counsel requests that the Court declines all remedies sought in the Petition and instead direct the parties to fully exhaust the statutory appeal mechanism under ***Section 15 of the Societies Act (Cap 108)***. **Analysis and Determination.** 1. Having evaluated the pleadings, annexed exhibits, Grounds of opposition, the Replying affidavits and the preliminary objection, the following issues are for determination: 2. ***Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited. To determine this, the Court will consider: -*** 3. ***Whether the Petition is incompetent for failing to satisfy the Doctrine of Exhaustion under Section 15 of the Societies Act and Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.*** 4. ***Whether the Petitioners possess the requisite legal standing to maintain this petition.*** 5. ***Whether the Petition meets the constitutional specificity threshold under the Anarita Karimi Njeru doctrine.*** 6. ***Whether the Petition is merited and the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought.*** 7. ***Costs.*** 8. **Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited** ***Exhaustion of Remedies*** 1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents have filed Preliminary Objection which should be determined first because it addresses threshold issues and has the effect of dismissing the petition, should the Court find merit in it. 2. The principles governing a preliminary objection are that it must be on a pure point of law, argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct, and if successful, it should dispose of the matter without requiring factual ascertainment. In the oft-cited case **Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v** **West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696**, Law JA stated: - ***“A Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration.”*** At p.700 – 701, Sir Charles Newbold, P added: - ***“A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is usually on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.”*** 1. This position has been reaffirmed in **Oraro v Mbaja [2005] 1 KLR 141**, where the court held that a preliminary objection cannot stand where factual evidence is necessary. 2. The 1st and 2nd Respondents argue that the Petition is fatally defective because **Section 15 of the Societies Act** provides only for an appeal to the High Court against the Cabinet Secretary’s decision, not through a Notice of Motion or Petition. They further contend that the Petitioners ceased to exist legally after their certificate of registration was cancelled by the Registrar of Societies on 1st August 2005 and since that decision was never appealed under **Section 15,** the Petitioners lack standing to institute these proceedings. 3. The main dispute centers on the legality of the rescission, refusal to register, subsequent re-registration and name change approvals of the competing entities -the Petitioners and 1st and 2nd Respondents - as well as the exclusive ownership and use of the name "Gospel of God Church" and its associated assets. 4. The question that the Court must answer is whether the Court should consider the merits of the Petition when statutory administrative appeal mechanisms under the Societies Act have not been exhausted. This question is a jurisdictional question which places the preliminary objection into the threshold of a pure point of law as settled in the **Mukisa Biscuit** (supra) case. 5. The doctrine of exhaustion finds anchorage on **Section 9(2) and (4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015,** which establishes that courts are barred from reviewing administrative actions unless the prescribed statutory remedies have first been exhausted. The section provides: **9. (2) The High Court or a subordinate court shall not review an administrative action or decision under this Act unless the mechanisms including internal review or appeal on administrative procedures provided for under any other written law are exhausted.** 1. The Court of Appeal in ***Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 others v. Samuel Munga Henry & 17 others [2015] eKLR*** affirmed that where a statutory mechanism for dispute resolution, parties must exhaust that foundation before resorting to constitutional litigation. (See also **Ezekiel Otieno v Funds Account Manager, Mathare National Constituency Development Fund & 2 others & Public Procurement Review Board & 12 others (Interested Parties) [2022] eKLR**). 2. From the pleadings and the annextures, it is discernible that the Gospel of God Church was originally registered in 1968, rescinded in 1985 and reinstated in 2009. In 2011, the Registrar directed Gospel of God Church International to revert back to its former name Glorious Gospel of God Church because its current name is nearly identical to the existing 1968 registry, violating **Section 11 of the Societies Act** by risking public deception. Consequently, the Registrar concluded that maintaining both registrations is unlawful and strongly recommends that Gospel of God Church International immediately complies by surrendering its current registration certificate within 30 days to re-register its former name or face cancellation. 3. It is the above decision that precipitated the present petition. This Court has considered this in light of the provisions of the Societies Act. **Section 15** states that:- ***15. Appeal from order of refusal, cancellation or suspension*** 1. ***Any society aggrieved by the Registrar’s refusal to register it, or by the cancellation or suspension of its registration under section 12 may—*** 2. ***in the case of a political party, appeal to the High Court within thirty days of such refusal, cancellation or suspension; or*** 3. ***in the case of any other society, appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within thirty days of such refusal, cancellation or suspension and the Cabinet Secretary shall consider, determine and communicate his decision on the appeal within ninety days of the appeal.*** 4. ***A society aggrieved by the decision of the Cabinet Secretary under subsection (1) (b) may appeal to the High Court within thirty days of the decision.*** 5. ***Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4, where a society other than a society specified in paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of the proviso to section 4(1), lodges an appeal under subsection (1) of this section, such society shall not, pending the decision on the appeal, be an unlawful society.*** 6. **Annexure ‘FM‑1**’ clearly demonstrates that the Petitioners, upon receiving the Registrar’s decision of 20th August 2024, they bypassed the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 15 of the Societies Act and instead resolved to file a constitutional petition. The Societies Act requires parties aggrieved by the Registrar’s decision to first lodge an appeal with the Cabinet Secretary. 7. In the ***Geoffrey Muthinja*** (supra) case, the Court was clear that courts ought to be fora of last resort and not the first port of call the moment a storm brews within churches, political parties or other such bodies. 8. By ignoring this statutory pathway and failing to seek exemption under **Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015,** or to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that this Court should consider at this stage to allow the by passing of the statutory appeal mechanism under **Section 15 of the Societies Act**, the Petitioners have prematurely approached this Court. Neither have they demonstrated that the appeal mechanisms under section 15 are inadequate. 9. The doctrine of exhaustion is not a mere technicality but a substantive requirement designed to preserve the hierarchy of dispute resolution and prevent constitutional litigation from displacing specialized statutory forums. This mechanism is recognised in Article 159(2) ( c) of the Constitution. Consequently, I find that the Petition is prematurely filed in total disregard of both the provisions of the Societies Act and the Fair Administrative Actions Act. **On Locus standi** 1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents challenge the Petitioners’ *locus standi* on several fronts. First, they argue that the 1st Petitioner ceased to exist in law after the Registrar revoked its name change on 1st August 2005, a decision never appealed under **Section 15 of the Societies Act**, thereby rendering SOC 45700 legally extinct, as confirmed in *Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011* and *CMCR. NO. E 252 of 2025.* 2. Second, they contend that under **Section 41 of the Societies Act**, an unincorporated or registered society cannot sue in its own name and any proceedings must be instituted through duly appointed officials with valid written authority, which the Petitioners lack. 3. Third, they assert that the incorporation of the 2nd Petitioner as trustee on 19th September 2007 is null and void *ab initio*, since trustees cannot be incorporated for a society that was already legally extinct, thereby stripping the Petitioners of any valid capacity to institute these proceedings. 4. The Petitioners, supported by the 3rd and 4th Respondents, assert valid *locus standi* on several grounds. They emphasize that SOC 45700 is a duly registered society, holding Certificate of Registration No. 23742 issued on 22nd March 2005, thereby conferring legitimate expectation and legal capacity. They further argue that SOC 7670 was lawfully extinguished in 1985 following rescission of its exemption and the dismissal of all appeals by 1987, meaning the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to “resuscitate” a defunct entity in 2009. 5. The Petitioners invoke constitutional standing under **Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution,** which broaden *locus standi* to allow any person or association to challenge violations of fundamental rights, including those under ***Articles 25, 27, 35, 40, and 47***. 6. Finally, the 3rd and 4th Respondents contend that the 1st and 2nd Respondents themselves lack standing, as state records confirm no entity exists under the name “Gospel of God Church (SOC 7670),” rendering them legal strangers incapable of filing Preliminary Objections, Grounds of Opposition, or Appeals. 7. *Locus standi* refers to the legal right or capacity of a party to initiate or be heard in court proceedings. The threshold for *locus standi* has evolved significantly from **Article 22 and 258 of the Constitution** as rightfully pointed out by the Petitioners. 8. The Court of Appeal in **Finmax Community Based Group & 3 others v Kericho Technical Institute [2021] eKLR** considered the issue of *locus standi*, referring to the **Mumo Matemu** case and stated as follows: ***“Having found that the respondent did not discharge its burden of proof, we need not consider the next and final ground; the capacity of the appellants to be sued. But for the development of the law, we shall consider it nonetheless. The appellants were sued as Finmax Community Based Group, the Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary. It was readily admitted that the 1st appellant was registered, as the name shows, as a community-based Group under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. The 2 nd, 3rd and 4th appellants were its officials.*** ***The question posed to the Judge was whether, in those circumstances the respondent could institute an action against appellants. In his answer, the Judge found that the 1st appellant could only be sued through its officials. But since the 1st appellant’s Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer were joined in the suit, the Judge was of the view that that was sufficient; and that to insist on the particulars of the officials would be to place technicality above substance. He also justified the joinder on the ground that, since in such community organizations high turnover of officials is expected, it is wise to sue the office and not the specific officials, who may have vacated those offices at the time an action is instituted.*** ***The 1st appellant is an unincorporated association and therefore in law is not a legal personality with the capacity to sue or to be sued. For along time, courts have held that such bodies could not sue or be sued. However, with the advent of the 2010 Constitution, this position appears to have changed. Article 260 which is the Interpretation section of the Constitution defines “a person” to include; “… a company, association or other body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated”. (Own emphasis).*** ***As regards institution of court actions, Article 50, dealing with issues of fair hearing gives; “(1) Every person …. the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body”.*** ***It would seem, from the foregoing, that an association like the 1st appellant is “a person” who may institute proceedings and also be sued.*** ***However, the question today is not whether unincorporated entities may commence action or how actions against them may be commenced, but rather, the manner of commencing proceedings. It is equally also settled that they cannot maintain an action or actions brought against them in their names. Proceedings on their behalf or against them can only be through the registered officials, whose particulars, names and capacity must clearly be indicated in the suit. See Grace Mwenda Munjuri vs. Trustee of the Agricultural Society of Kenya [2014]eKLR. In this appeal, the 1stappellant, being an unincorporated organization, had no capacity to be sued in its own name.*** ***The respondent could only institute the suit as against named officials. Titles like Chairman, secretary or treasurer cannot be used as those are not legal persons against whom orders may be executed by the successful party in the proceedings.*** ***For the reasons we have given, this appeal succeeds. We accordingly allow it by setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court made on 24th March, 2015 and amended on 22 nd April, 2015 and substitute it with an order dismissing the respondent’s suit”.[emphasis added]*** 1. From the holding in the above cited decision, it is clear that whereas an incorporated society is now defined as a person and may therefore sue and be sued, it can only sue and be sued through its recognised registered officials or trustees. 2. In**Republic v Registrar of Societies & another; Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association (Nairobi Branch) (Ex parte) [2025] KEHC 4789 (KLR)**, this Court delineated the parameters of *locus standi* for societies and unincorporated entities. This Court held *inter alia* that societies under the Societies Act are not corporate bodies and lack independent legal personality, meaning a non-existent or deregistered entity cannot maintain a cause of action. 3. This Court also held that Section 41 of the Societies Act requires proceedings to be instituted through named, registered officials with written authorization, as reinforced in the **Finmax Community Based Group v Kericho Technical Institute (supra) case** and **Grace Mwenda Munjuri v Agricultural Society of Kenya.** Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in **Mumo Matemu vs. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2014] e KLR,** this Court made a distinction between public interest litigation under Articles 22 and 258, where expanded constitutional standing applies and private or commercial disputes, where strict procedural rules must be observed to prevent suits by non-juristic entities. 4. Applying these principles, I note that neither the Gospel of God Church International (SOC 45700) the 1st Petitioner herein nor Gospel of God Church (SOC 7670) the 1st Respondent can litigate in their own names without naming registered officials and producing written authorization under **Section 41 of the Societies Act**. 5. The Petitioners filed the Petition in the name of the society rather than through duly appointed officials and no resolution authorizing representation was annexed. Although the Petitioners invoke constitutional provisions, the dispute concerns entitlement to the name “Gospel of God Church” and ownership of assets, which are private and commercial interests not public interest litigation. This is further evidenced from the citation of the petition herein as follows: **IN THE MATTER OF: DISPUTE ON OWNERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE NAME GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH AND OWNERSHIP OF THE EFFECTS AND ASSETS BELONGING TO GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH.** This kind of dispute cannot be a public interest litigation, by any stretch of imagination. 6. Similarly, the 1st and 2nd Respondents being Societies, could only be sued in the names of their respective officials or Trustees, not as is the case herein where the Petitioners, Churches are suing the 1st and 2nd respondent churches. 7. As was held in the above referenced case **Republic v Registrar of Societies & another; Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association (Nairobi Branch) (Ex parte),** constitutional standing cannot cure defects in party capacity where the suit is for internal or personal benefit. 8. Moreover, if the 1st Petitioner’s registration was revoked in 2005 as affirmed by Judge Nzili in the ELC case, without appeal and 1st Respondent -SOC 7670 is not listed on the official register, both entities are legally non-existent. 9. The only saving grace for the 1st Respondent would be Annexture FM-52, the Registrar’s Letter dated of 18th October 2024 at pages 266-267 of the Annextures which is the acknowledgment that in a Letter dated 11th November 2009, Senior Deputy Registrar General F.S.M. Ng’ang’a reinstated their registration. This position, however, is overruled by the decision of the Court in the ELC Case in ***Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011***, where Justice C.K. Nzili ruled on 15th November 2023, that the Petitioners ceased to exist in law as of 1st August 2005. 10. Overall, a non-existent entity such as the 1st Petitioner herein lacks *locus standi* entirely, rendering any proceedings instituted by or against it, nullity ab initio. Neither can the 2nd petitioner, and the 1st and 2nd respondents maintain causes of action nor be sued in their own names as churches. 11. In light of these findings, I find that the Petitioners herein are an unincorporated society seeking judicial review and constitutional orders for their own benefit. Accordingly, they could only sue through their named, registered officials with written authorization as required under Section 41 of the Societies Act. Failure to comply deprives this Court of jurisdiction, and proceedings instituted by non-juristic or legally extinct entities are incompetent and liable to be struck out. 12. Having established the above, it follows then that the other merit issues for determination cannot be considered by this Court as they now fall moot for this Court’s determination. 13. I hasten to add that whereas not non-joinder or misjoinder of a party may not be fatal to a constitutional petition as provided for under Rule 5 of the Mutunga Rules, as it may be cured by an amendment, in this case, there are other issues which have been settled by an Environment and Land Court on the existence of some of the parties hereto in ***Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011***, where C.K. Nzili J found on 15th November 2023, that the Petitioners ceased to exist in law as of 1st August 2005, and therefore, an order for amendment, cannot cure the legal standing defect including the non-exhaustion of appeal mechanisms provided for under **Section 15 of the Societies Act.** 14. For the reasons detailed above, the Court finds that the Preliminary Objection dated 19th February 2025 is well-founded and merited. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 15. ***The Petition dated 29th November 2024 and the attendant Notice of Motion Application are hereby struck out.*** 16. ***The parties are directed to exhaust the statutory appellate process under Section 15 of the Societies Act (Cap 108) currently pending before the Cabinet Secretary/Attorney General.*** 17. ***Any proceedings being filed in court by or against registered societies are only maintainable through recognised officials or trustees.*** 18. ***Each party shall bear their own costs of the Petition and the application as struck out*** 19. This file is closed. 20. Orders accordingly. **Dated, Signed &Delivered virtually at Nairobi this 8th Day of September, 2026** **R.E. ABURILI** **JUDGE**