https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11129

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **CONSTITIONAL PETITION NO. E064 OF 2025** **BETWEEN** **MICHAEL THUO KIBUNJA……………………………............PETITIONER** **AND** **THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VETERINARY** **LABORATORY SPORTS CLUB…..……………………….......RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. Vide the Petition dated 10th February 2025, the Petitioner seeks judgment against the Respondent on the following terms— 2. A declaration that the Petitioner’s suspension and expulsion from the membership of the Veterinary Sports Club violated his constitutional right to freedom of association under Article 36 of the Constitution, thereby causing harm to his credit, character, reputation, profession, and exposing him to ridicule and contempt. 1. An award of special damages in the sum of Kshs. 8,550/–. 2. General damages for injury to the Petitioner’s credit, character, reputation, and profession as a civil engineer, and for ridicule and contempt, to be assessed by the Court. 3. That the liquidated damages do bear interest at court rates from the date of filing of the Petition, and general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full. 4. Costs of the Petition. 5. The Respondent opposes the Petition and has filed a replying affidavit sworn by Shitul Shah, a director of the Respondent. He challenges the competence of the Petition on multiple fronts: that it is res judicata; that it is premature, the Petitioner having failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms; that the Petition is void as it is premised on decisions of the Sports Disputes Tribunal, which allegedly lacks jurisdiction; and finally, that the Respondent, being a registered society under the Societies Act, is not a body corporate and therefore cannot be sued in its own name. 6. In a further affidavit sworn on 17th June 2026, the Petitioner avers that judicial precedent establishes that Article 22(1) and (2) as read with Article 260 of the Constitution validates this Petition. As a preliminary issue, therefore, I must determine whether the Petition is competent and warrants consideration on its merits. 7. I observe that all the authorities relied upon by the Petitioner address the *locus standi* of a petitioner to institute constitutional proceedings. None addresses whether an unincorporated entity, lacking legal capacity, may be sued in its own name. In **Singh & 6 others v Management Committee of Veterinary Laboratory Sports Club & another (Environment & Land Case 303 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 4312 (KLR) (23 May 2024) (Judgment),** the Court considered this very question and stated**:** **“It is trite that a society cannot be sued in its name, and any legal suit must instead be instituted against the officials of the society.”** 1. In **Trustees Kenya Redeemed Church & Another v Samuel M’Obiya & 5 Others [2011] eKLR,** the Court held**:** **“It is trite law that a society under the Societies Act is not a legal person with capacity to sue or be sued. A society can only sue or be sued through its due officers. It has not been pleaded that the 2nd defendant has been sued in the capacity of an official of Kenya Redeemed Church nor has it been pleaded that he has been sued in his personal capacity.”** 1. I note further that Article 22 provides on who may present a Petition. It does not extend to prescribe against whom a Petition may be presented. A Court cannot issue orders in vain; its orders must be enforceable. It is impossible to conceive how orders of this Court could be enforced against an entity that lacks legal personality and capacity to be sued. The consequence is inescapable. The Petition is incompetent and must be struck out. 2. Given the history of this matter, I make no order as to costs. **SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **P.M. NYAUNDI** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of** Fardosa Court Assistant F. N. Wamalwa for Petitioner Ludenyo for Respondent