https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4871

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MURANG’A** **ELCLC NO E014 OF 2026** **SIMON NJENGA KING’EE……….……..……………......…1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **VICTORIA WANJIKU……….……..………….………....…2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **(Suing in their capacity as National Officials** **(Executive) of GOD’S MERCY MINISTRY)** **VERSUS** **SAMUEL NJOGU KIMITA ………………………....….1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **PATRICK WOGETKI KIBUTHI ………………….….2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **PHILIP GITHINJI KIBUTHI …………………….....….3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **MARY WATIRI MUCHARA ……………………..…....4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **DORCAS MUGURE MWAI ……………………......….5TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **ANASTACIA WANGARI KIBIRA ……………….....….6TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **(Sued in their capacity as National Officials (Executive) of GOD’s MERCY MINISTRIES** **RULING** 1. This ruling is on the notice of motion dated 6-3-2026. The motion which is by the Plaintiffs is brought under Order 40 rules 1,2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law. The motion seeks the following residual orders. 2. **That the Defendants, by themselves, their agents, employees, servants, agents, followers, congregants and/or proxies be restrained by way of injunction from trespassing, invading, disrupting and/or in whatsoever manner intruding, interfering with the Plaintiffs’ use and or quiet enjoyment of their property, worship centres and or churches owned/leased by God’s Mercy Church situated on properties known as Loc.10/Wanjengi/T.9, Makuyu/Kimorori/BLK. 1/2591, Loc.4/Gatitu/479/23, Karugiro God’s Mercy Ministry, Plot No. 10 located in Kamune Shopping Centre and God’s Mercy Church Gitugi pending the hearing and final determination of the suit herein.** 3. **That an order do issue directing the Deputy County Commissioner (DCC) Mathioya Sub-County in conjunction with all other relevant Deputy County Commissioners in their respective jurisdiction to re-open all the churches and places of worship belonging to or leased by God’s Mercy Ministry.** 4. **That the costs of this application be provided for.** 5. The motion is based on eleven (11) grounds and is supported by an affidavit sworn by the 1st Plaintiff. The gist of the grounds and the affidavit is as follows. Firstly, God’s Mercy Ministry is a church duly registered under the Societies Act on 14-4-1992 under Registration Number SOC. 28539. It owns the following parcels. * 1. **Loc.10/Wanjengi/T.9** 2. **Makuyu/Kimorori/Block 1/2591.** 3. **Loc.4/Gatitu/479/23.** 4. **Karugiro God’s Mercy Ministry, Plot No. 10 located in Kamune Shopping Centre.** 5. **God’s Mercy Church Gitugi.** The above mentioned land parcels have been bought or leased by the Church and its members worship in the premises constructed thereon. Secondly, the Defendants have registered themselves under the entity known as God’s Mercy Ministries without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs or their consent. They have also been intruding, disrupting and interfering with the Plaintiffs’ use and quiet enjoyment of the five(5) churches. These actions of the Defendants have cause a breach of peace and tranquility in the worship centres in addition to grievous bodily injuries to the worshippers. For this reason, the Deputy County Commissioner, Mathioya Sub-County in conjunction with his fellow administrators have issued a closure order of the majority of the Plaintiffs’ churches and worship centres in their land thereby disrupting the operations of the Plaintiffs’ worship activities and operations. Thirdly, the Defendants’ actions of disrupting the Plaintiffs’ operations is not only a violation of their Constitutional Right of Worship but is it also aimed at defeating the Plaintiffs’ right over the suit property and they stand to suffer irreparable loss and damage. Fourthly, in Murang’a MCC Case No. E021/2025 the Court held that the Defendants had not established a prima facie case with a probability of success. Despite the said ruling and finding, the Defendants have continued to intrude and disrupt the Plaintiffs’ activities on the suit land. It is for the above and other reasons that the Plaintiffs now seek the above orders. 1. The motion is opposed by Defendants and the 1st, 2nd , 5th and 6th have sworn a replying affidavit dated 22-5-2026 in which they reply as follows. One, the Plaintiffs lacks *locus standi* to institute these proceedings in the name of God’s Mercy Ministry as they have not exhibited any resolution, authority or official documentation demonstrating that they are authorized to act on behalf of the said entity. They have also failed to demonstrate the existence of the entity called “God’s Mercy Ministry” as a registered society or legal person capable of suing. The mode of registration of the said organization is unheard of as per the letter of the Registrar of Societies dated 13-8-2025. Two, the 3rd Defendant is no longer an official of God’s Mercy Ministries after stepping down from his role as secretary of the Church. The 4th Defendant is deceased and the Plaintiffs are aware of this yet they filed a suit against a dead person. Three, on 12-3-2026, this Court required the Plaintiff to procure valuation reports showing the value of the suit parcels. According to the Defendants, the value of the plots is Kshs. 17,540,000/=. Four, the Church has historically operated under various names such as God’s Mercy Ministries, God’s Mercy Ministry, God’s Mercy Christian Ministry and God’s Mercy Church, all referring to the same entity. Five, the suit property was developed and acquired through contributions from congregants over time and they are not exclusive property of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants and congregants were peaceful all along and any disruption was occasioned by the Plaintiffs’ attempt to exclude other members. The alleged closures and violence occurred one (1) year ago between March and July 2025 and it was the subject of Murang’a MCCC No. E912 OF 2025. There is therefore no urgency or need for any order at the moment. Six, the closure of the Churches by the Deputy County Commissioner, Mathioya Sub-County, was an administrative measure taken to preserve public order following disputes instigated by the Plaintiffs yet the Deputy County Commissioner has not been made a party in these proceedings. Seven, the dispute herein primarily concerns internal governance, leadership and management of a religious society and not ownership, use or occupation of land as contemplated under Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act. Finally, the 1st Plaintiff was a member of the Defendants’ branch Churches but after elections, he was replaced. Disagreements arose between him and church leadership leading to divisions among members of the congregation. This court therefore lack jurisdiction to determine the prayer seeking deregistration of the church. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant the grant of injunctive relief and the orders sought would unjustly prejudice the Defendants and the wider congregation. It is therefore in the interests of justice that the Plaintiffs’ application dated 6-3-2026 be dismissed or in the alternative the current status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 2. The only submissions that I have seen on record are by the Plaintiffs and they are dated 15-7-2026. The issues identified therein include the following. 3. **Whether the Applicants have established a prima facie with a high probability of success.** 4. **Whether the Applicants stand to suffer substantial loss that no award of damages can adequately compensate.** 5. **If the court is in doubt, in whose favour does the balance of convenience tilt?** 6. I have carefully considered the motion in its entirety including the grounds, the supporting affidavit, the replying affidavit, the written submissions, the issues identified and the law cited. I agree that the issues identified are relevant but I wish to add the following. I do so under Order 15 rue 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 7. **What is the value of the suit parcels.** 8. **Why was the dispute herein could not be resolved in Murang’a MCC Case E012/2025.** 9. **Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants are properly sued in this case.** 10. **Which is the dominant relief sought in this case between occupation of the suit parcels by one party or the other declaring which of the two factions is the legal one.** 11. Regarding the value of suit land, I have not seen any valuation report even after the directions dated 12-3-2026 requiring the Plaintiffs to file such evidence. The Defendants state that the value of the land is Kshs. 17,450,000/= but they too have not filed any evidence to support this statement. To be fair to the parties, I will allow the Plaintiffs more time to file the said report. 12. As for the second issue identified by the Court, the Plaintiffs ought to explain what became of Murang’a MCCC/E012/2025 and why their claim could not be litigated in that case such that they had to file this case. It is not enough to aver like they have done in paragraph 8 of the plaint that there exists a previous suit which is similar to the current one. They should let the Court know why the filing of this suit was necessary if there was a similar suit. 13. The Plaintiffs were expected to reply to the serious allegations that the 3rd Defendant is not an official of God’s Mercy Ministries and that the 4th Defendant was deceased even at the time of filing of the suit. There should have been a supplementary affidavit to respond to all these serious allegations. 14. It is the Plaintiffs with the burden to prove that this Court has the jurisdiction to issue some of the orders sought especially prayer ( e) which seeks a declaration that the approval of God’s Mercy Ministries by the Registrar of Societies was bad in law. There is also the related prayer No. (f). The Court will not be quick to strike out the suit before giving the Plaintiffs a chance amend their pleadings. 15. Having made the above findings, it is clear to me that as of now the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the orders sought in the motion dated 6-3-2026. The Plaintiffs have not established a prima facie with a probability of success and having failed to do so the Court also finds that they have not proved that they stand to suffer irreparable loss that cannot be adequately compensated with an award of damages. The court need not look at the balance of convenience since it is sure of the two conditions in the case of **Giella vs. Cassman Brown [1973] E.A 358.** 16. In conclusion and for the reasons already given, I dismiss the notice of motion dated 6-3-2026. Costs in the cause. **Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Murang’a this 28th day of July, 2026.** **M.N. GICHERU JUDGE.** **Delivered online in the presence of; -** **Court Assistant – Antony** **Plaintiffs’ Counsel –Miss Wambua** **1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Defendants’ Counsel – Mr. Mbuthia**