[2014] KEHC 3355 (KLR)
The court found that as at the time the status quo order was made, the plaintiffs (pre-election office bearers) were still in control of the association's offices and management, having refused to hand over to the newly elected officials. The court determined that the status quo to be preserved was the continued...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3355 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya National Paralympic Committee; Plaintiff: Stanley Mutuma; Plaintiff: Jairus Mogalo; Plaintiff: Ronald Milare; Defendant: Agnes Aluoch; Defendant: Dennis Muga; Defendant: Albert Korir; Defendant: Francis Kibuchi; Defendant: John Tita; Defendant: Leonard Mizigo; Defendant: Lenna Nyaboke; Defendant: Elijah Mwandihi; Defendant: Bernard Ong’ondo; Defendant: Sospeter Maina; Defendant: Patrick Muthiani; Defendant: Henry Wanyoike; Defendant: Kenya National Sports Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 70 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Status Quo Order
- Outcome
- Status quo order affirmed in favour of plaintiffs.
- Judges
- DA Onyancha
- Legal Topics
- Status Quo Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Management of Associations
- 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
Kenya National Paralympic Committee
Plaintiff
Stanley Mutuma
Plaintiff
Jairus Mogalo
Plaintiff
Ronald Milare
Plaintiff
Agnes Aluoch
Defendant
Dennis Muga
Defendant
Albert Korir
Defendant
Francis Kibuchi
Defendant
John Tita
Defendant
Leonard Mizigo
Defendant
Lenna Nyaboke
Defendant
Elijah Mwandihi
Defendant
Bernard Ong’ondo
Defendant
Sospeter Maina
Defendant
Patrick Muthiani
Defendant
Henry Wanyoike
Defendant
Kenya National Sports Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Status Quo Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the status quo order permitted the pre-election office holders to remain in office pending resolution of the dispute.
- 2 Whether the officers elected in the disputed elections should take up office before the court resolves the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that as at the time the status quo order was made, the plaintiffs (pre-election office bearers) were still in control of the association's offices and management, having refused to hand over to the newly elected officials. The court determined that the status quo to be preserved was the continued occupation and management by the plaintiffs, not the assumption of office by the newly elected officials. The court relied on the evidence from affidavits and pleadings, which showed that the plaintiffs had not relinquished control and that the defendants had not effectively taken over management. Therefore, the status quo order maintained the plaintiffs in office until the...
Court Disposition
Status quo order affirmed in favour of plaintiffs.
Orders
- The status quo as at 16th May, 2014 is that the plaintiffs remain in control of the offices and management of the 1st plaintiff until the dispute is resolved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
(CIVIL DIVISION)
CIVIL CASE NUMBER 70 OF 2014
KENYA NATIONAL PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE….1ST PLAINTIFF
STANLEY MUTUMA. ………………………..……… 2ND PLAINTIFF
JAIRUS MOGALO. ……………………………...…... 3RD PLAINTIFF
RONALD MILARE. ……………………………..…….. 4TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AGNES ALUOCH. ……………………………………1ST DEFENDANT
DENNIS MUGA. ……………………………………… 2ND DEFENDANT
ALBERT KORIR. ………………………………….…. 3RD DEFENDANT
FRANCIS KIBUCHI. ……………………………..…… 4TH DEFENDANT
JOHN TITA. …………………………….……….…… 5TH DEFENDANT
LEONARD MIZIGO. ………………………………..….6TH DEFENDANT
LENNA NYABOKE. …………………………………… 7TH DEFENDANT
ELIJAH MWANDIHI. ………………………….………..8TH DEFENDANT
BERNARD ONG’ONDO. ................................…………9TH DEFENDANT
SOSPETER MAINA. ………………………....………. 10TH DEFENDANT
PATRICK MUTHIANI. …………………………………..11TH DEFENDANT
HENRY WANYOIKE. ………………………………..…. 12TH DEFENDANT
KENYA NATIONAL SPORTS COUNCIL ……………..13TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The court on the 8th April, 2014 in the presence of parties from both sides, entered an order, inter alia, of “Status Quo”. The purpose was clearly to maintain, for the purpose of orderliness, the status that would sustain and protect the rights of the members of the Paralympics Association without disruption until the dispute arising from elections is resolved. On 16th May, 2014 the order was extended.
The issue before the court is whether the court authorized the pre-election of office holders to continue in office or the officers elected in the disputed elections were to take up office and run the Association until the dispute in court was resolved one way or the other. The elections were held on 14th March, 2014.
I have carefully perused the records. What clearly comes out in the facts is that the old office-bearers were ousted in the election or purported election, as the case may be, which took place on 14th March, 2014. They are the Plaintiffs. They appear to have refused to give way or handover the Association offices and management. They instead rushed to court and filed this suit on 26th March, 2014.
On 8th April, 2014 both sides appeared before court. Service on all parties was found not complete and court fixed the matter for hearing on 16th May, 2014 when pleadings and service would be complete. That is when the first order of status quo was granted to keep the situation where it was.
There is evidence in the Plaintiffs deponements that they had refused to accept the election result and had kept in their control and going, their old management, the offices and the bank accounts.
The Defendants Replying affidavit by Agnes Oluoch in paragraph 36 conceded that despite the new officials requesting the old officials to handover the old officials had refused and run to court to file this case. This affidavit was sworn on 17th April, 2014 several days after the status quo order had been made by this court.
The above in the court’s view disproves the Defendants position that they had taken over the management and offices of the Association by 15th March, 2014. In the circumstances the status quo as at 16th May, 2014 was that the Plaintiffs who had been ousted in the election still kept the offices and the management of the 1st Plaintiff. The court so rules and orders.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 24th day of July, 2014.
…………………………………………………….
D A ONYANCHA
JUDGE