Maweu & another v Wambua & 3 others (Land Case E019 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4801 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT** **AT KAJIADO** **ELCLC E019 OF 2026** **LUCAS MAWEU ……………………………………....………1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **DELIVERANCE CHURCH ………….……………...….…… 2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **LEONARD WAMBUA ………………………….……………...……………1ST DEFENDANT** **EDWARD MULINGE ………………………………………………..….......2ND DEFENDANT** **BENSON KASYIMA …………………………………………………..…….3RD DEFENDANT** **PETER KISANGAU ………………………………………...……………... 4TH DEFENDANT** **RULING** ***(In respect of the*** ***Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated 18th December, 2025 seeking temporary injunctive reliefs)*** **Introduction** 1. The Ruling is in respect of the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion Application dated 18 December, 2025. The Application which is brought pursuant to Articles 40, 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; and Order 51 Rule 1, Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 seeks the following reliefs; 2. ***Spent*** 3. ***Spent*** 4. ***Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendants/Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, associates, or persons claiming under them, from entering, remaining upon, trespassing onto, disrupting activities on, selling, leasing, charging, pledging, encroaching, evicting, demolishing, arbitrary registration or in any other manner interfering with the Plaintiff/Applicants’ peaceful occupation and quiet possession of DELIVERANCE CHURCH of the suit property situated at Masimba, Kajiado County, registered as Plot No. B290 located at Masimba Trading Center in Kajiado County measuring 0.40 hectares the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Masimba Police Station assist in enforcing these orders.*** 5. ***That the status quo on the suit properties be maintained, with the Plaintiff and DELIVERANCE CHURCH permitted uninterrupted possession, occupation, and use pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.*** 6. ***Spent*** 7. ***The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Masimba Police Station be directed to assist in the enforcement and compliance with the orders of this Honourable Court and to maintain peace and order at the suit premises.*** 8. ***The Plaintiffs/Applicants be declared as the lawful exclusive occupants of the suit property situated at Masimba, Kajiado County, registered as Plot No. B29 and confirmed under new allotment letters issued on 13th March 2025 as Plot No. B290, measuring 0.40 hectares.*** 9. ***Costs of this Application be borne by the Defendants/Respondents.*** 10. The Application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of the motion and supported by the affidavits of **Lucas Maweu** sworn on 2 February, 2026 as well as the undated affidavit of **Peter Kithongo,** an elder and congregant member. In a nutshell, it is alleged that the 2nd Plaintiff is the lawful and registered owner of Plot No. B290*, the suit property herein*, situated at Masimba, Kajiado County from where it has continuously conducted religious and charitable activities therein among them worship, lunch-hour services, sunday services, interdenominational gatherings, and feeding needy children. Since 2002, it is contended that the 2nd Plaintiff has continuously held, managed, and conducted its activities on the suit property up until 2025 when individuals claiming to be representative of **Eagle Rise Christian Church** (**Eagle Church**) and acting on Defendants’ instructions unlawfully entered into the church premises and removed the public address system valued at roughly Kshs. 300,000/=. 11. The Deponents assert that when the Defendants returned to the 2nd Defendants’ premises around 1st February 2026, they threated that if the suit property whose ownership they claim was not surrendered to them, they would forcefully remove the Plaintiffs and all congregant members from the premises. Although the incidents were reported at Masimba Police Station, the court has been beseeched to issue temporary injunctive and protective orders so as to maintain the status quo and prevent further unlawful interference of the suit property by the Defendants. They argue that they have established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience tilts in their favour. This is especially due to the real and imminent threat of interference with the suit property by the Defendants, interruption of religious activities and other activities, and intimidation of its congregant members by the Defendants. **The Defendants’ case** 1. On behalf of the Defendants, **Leonard Wambua,** the 1st Defendant through this replying affidavit sworn on 10th April, 2016 April calls for dismissal of the application because it has not met the threshold for issuance of injunctive orders neither was full-material disclosure made when this court issued *ex parte* orders in favour of the Plaintiffs. Considering the 1st Plaintiff does not have the requisite authority from the 2nd Plaintiff to institute this suit nor make an oath on its behalf, it is deposed that he cannot purport to be its pastor nor its representative. It is contended that although the suit property is registered in the 2nd Plaintiff names, its possession and occupation has been with **Eagle Church** since 2004 and under the leadership and control of the 1st Plaintiff and Defendants. It is deposed that the Plaintiffs’ claim does not disclose any cause of action against Defendants for they have no personal interests suit property; and were wrongfully enjoined yet **Eagle Church** is a separate and distinct entity. 2. The Defendants assert that since 2002, the 1st Plaintiff was a pastor, minister and board member of **Eagle Church** until 27 January, 2026 when he wasexpelled for rebranding its premises to the 2nd Plaintiff’s name. Similarly, he attended various **Eagle Church** ministries; oversaw and supervised the activities; executed land agreements on its behalf; officiated the celebration of congregants’ marriages; and even celebrated his marriage at the suit property on 27 April 2019. 3. It is alleged that the 1st Plaintiff fraudulently indicated the 2nd Plaintiffs’ name as opposed to Eagle Church as the owner of the suit property**.** It is the Defendants’ case that on 1 February, 2026, congregants were not forcefully removed from **Eagle Church,** rather the 1st Defendant urged the 1st Plaintiff to hand over the church premises and keys in order to ensure the induction ofOnesmus Makau took place. It is further claimed that the 1st Plaintiff in cahoots with unknown individuals wants to run their personal activities within the suit property at the expense of **Eagle Church** and its members. 4. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs law suit is a retaliation against M*CCC No. E032 of 2026; Onesmus Katoto Muthoka and Benson Kasyima vs Lucas Mutisya Maweu filed* on 1 February 2026 before the Kajiado Chief Magistrate’s court where **Hon. Roseline A. Oganyo** issued temporary injunction on 2 February, 2026 awaiting hearing and determination of the application against the 1st Plaintiff. **Plaintiffs’ further Affidavit** 1. The Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants case through a furtheraffidavit sworn on 7 May, 2026, by the 1st Plaintiff who reiterates the Plaintiffs’ case and deposes that as at the time he was ordained as the 2nd Plaintiff Pastor in 2002, **Eagle Church** had not yet been formed. Further, based on structures and operational set-up of deliverance church international, Jackson Muema is a board member and an overseer of the 2nd Plaintiff’s Lower Eastern Region. The Deponent contends that although he voluntarily collaborated with **Eagle Church,** such association does not confer it with any proprietary rights, ownership, control or possession rights over the 2nd Plaintiff’s premises. It is maintained that the 2nd Plaintiff has never transferred, assigned or relinquished to **Eagle Church** the suit property neither does any agreement, memorandum of understanding or instruments exists granting it rights over the suit property. In addition, based on church returns filed with the Register of Societies between 2014 and 2023, the Defendants are well aware that **Eagle Church** operates through partnership with independent churches and has never owned any property inclusive of the suit property. Consequently, the church is estopped from claiming ownership of the suit property because the premises has at all times been under the management, control and occupation of the 2nd Plaintiff. 2. Regarding the reasons for suing the Defendants in this lawsuit, it is argued that they unlawfully entered into the suit premises on 1st February, 2026; damaged properties; and issued threats to take over the property yet they had no proprietary, possessory or legal interests over it. Their actions amount to trespass and poses real and imminent threat to the Plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property. 3. Concerning MCCC/E032/2026 before the Kajiado Chief Magistrate’s court, it is stated that it does not concern the land dispute and the 2nd Plaintiff was not a party neither was the issue of the suit property’s ownership pleaded therein. Considering the present lawsuit concerns ownership and possession of the suit property, the Plaintiffs insist that this court has the requisite jurisdiction to determine it based on the provisions of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (Cap. 8D). **Courts directions** 1. When the Application came up for inter-partes hearing on 13 May, 2026, the court issued directions to the effect that it be disposed of by way of written submission. This directive was duly complied with by all the parties. The court has had occasion to read and consider the submissions filed. **Issues for determination** 1. Having carefully evaluated the plaint and the application by the Plaintiffs, the response thereto by the Defendants as well as the submissions filed, one critical issue glares at me and it must be determined even before delving into the merits of the application under consideration; this is the question whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to initiate and maintain this suit/application. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The issue whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to initiate and maintain this suit/application is a critical issue. Locus standi is defined as the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum. It is that one issue, just like jurisdiction, that a court of law must consider at the earliest opportunity.To say that a party lacks locus standi in a suit can be equated to a court acting without jurisdiction. 2. The Court of Appeal considered the meaning and scope of locus standi in the case of ***Rugiri v Kinuthia & 3 others [2024] KECA 1601 (KLR),*** where it stated that: ***“The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition (page 1026) defines locus standi as “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum”. This Court in Alfred Njau and Others vs. City Council of Nairobi [1982] KAR 229 held that: “The term Locus Standi means a right to appear in Court and conversely to say that a person has no Locus Standi means that he has no right to appear or be heard in such and such proceedings”. Locus standi is cardinal in civil proceedings because without it, a party lacks the right to institute and/or maintain the suit even where a valid cause of action subsists. It can be equated to a court acting without jurisdiction. In Amlers Precedents of Pleadings, Lexis Nexis LTC Harms et al 2018 on page 248 the following is said: “The question of locus standi is in a sense procedural, but it is also a matter of substance. It concerns the sufficiency and directness of a person’s interest in the litigation to be accepted as a litigating party. It is also related to the capacity of a person to conclude a jural act. Sufficiency of interest depends on the facts of each case and there are no fixed rules.” Locus standi concerns the sufficiency and directness of a litigant’s interest in proceedings which warrants his or her title to prosecute the claim asserted, and should be one of the first things to establish in a litigation.”*** 1. I will begin by addressing the status of the 2nd Plaintiff named as ‘Deliverance Church’. In the plaint the Plaintiff is simply described as ‘a religious organization duly registered under the relevant laws of Kenya’. 2. Ordinarily religious organizations are registered under the Societies Act as societies. Indeed, the Defendants/Respondents in their replying affidavit have attached a letter dated 10th April 2026 from their Assistant Registrar of Societies, answering to a request for particulars of Deliverance Church by Mutunga Justus & Associates Advocates. The Assistant Registrar of Societies confirms the officers of the society (Deliverance Church) to be; 3. Chairman - Mark Kubai Kariuki 4. General secretary - John Masinde 5. Assistant General Secretary - Jimmy Kenny Kimani 6. Treasurer – George Gichana Nyabando 7. Two things are clear from the above cited letter; * 1. Deliverance church is a society under the Societies Act; and 2. Its registered officials are as listed in the said letter 8. The above letter by the Assistant Registrar of Societies has not been contested by the Plaintiffs. Establishing the status of registration of the 2nd Plaintiff is absolutely important in answering the question of locus standi. 9. In Kenya the law is settled that a society under the Societies Act is not a body corporate; it has no legal capacity to sue or be sued in its own name but in the name of its registered officials. There are a myriad of decided cases on the issue; ***Republic -vs- Registrar of Societies ex parte Narok Muslim Welfare Association (2017) eKLR, Islamia Madrassa Society -vs- Zafar Niaz & others (2021) eKLR, and others.*** 10. The Court of Appeal in ***Finmax Community Based Group & 3 others -vs- Kericho Technical Institute (2021) eKLR***, considered the issue of locus standi reiterating that an unincorporated entity 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 be clearly indicated in the suit. 11. Earlier in the case of KPLC Limited -vs- Benzene Holdings Limited t/a Wyco Paints (2016) eKLR, the court had cited Templeton J in Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co. -vs- Fredrick Muigai Wangoe (1959) EA 474 to the effect that, ***“The party seeking to maintain the action is in the eye of our law no party at all but a mere name only, with no legal existence. A non-existent person cannot sue, and once the court is made aware that the Plaintiff is non-existent, and therefore incapable of maintaining the action, it cannot allow the action to proceed.”*** 1. I would say the same of the 2nd in this case. It is in the eye of the law, a non-existent person, a mere name only, with no legal existence. It cannot sue and cannot maintain this action. The court cannot allow the action to proceed. 2. Having said so, I proceed to the 1st Plaintiff by asking the question; who is the 1st Plaintiff? 3. In the plaint filed herein, the 1st Plaintiff is described as a pastor, placed in charge of the suit property by Deliverance Church. In his supporting affidavit sworn on 2nd February 2026, the 1st Plaintiff deposes that he has been authorized by Deliverance Church to swear the affidavit in support of the application. Essentially, he purports to sue on behalf of the Deliverance Church. 4. The authority that the 1st Plaintiff attaches to the supporting affidavit is a letter dated 1st February 2026 authored by one Bishop Jackson Muema of Deliverance Church, Makueni South Region. The letter reads as follows; ***“This is to confirm that Reverend Lucas Maweu has been serving as the pastor of Deliverance Church Masimba in Masimba trading centre along Mombasa road in Kajado County since the year 2002. As a pastor he has the power and responsibility to act as the custodian of all church properties, members welfare and daily functioning of church affairs.”*** 1. Reverend Lucas Maweu is not an official of the Deliverance church; neither is he Bishop Jackson Muema in accordance with the letter from the office of the Registrar of Societies. He therefore has no authority to sue on behalf of Deliverance Church or authorize any other person to do so in any event. The purported letter of authority does not even authorize the 1st Plaintiff to sue on behalf of Deliverance Church. 2. The upshot is that the 1st Plaintiff lacks the locus standi, the right to bring this suit or be heard before this court on behalf of Deliverance Church. The application which is premised on incompetent suit (by persons without legal capacity to sue) is therefore incompetent. 3. Having arrived at the above conclusion I need to go into the merits of the application. I will leave it at that. 4. I accordingly strike out the application dated 2nd February 2026 with costs to the Defendants. Orders accordingly. **Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kajiado Virtually this 24th Day of July 2026.** **M.D. MWANGI** **JUDGE** **In the virtual presence of:** Mr. Simon Mwangangi h/b for Ms. Mutio for the Plaintiffs/Applicants Mr. Moshe h/b for Mr. Mutunga for the Defendants/Respondents Court Assistant: Alex **M.D. MWANGI** **JUDGE**