[2001] KEHC 556 (KLR)
The court held that under the Land (Group Representations) Act, only the group representatives named in the certificate of incorporation, acting in their corporate capacity, have the legal capacity to sue or be sued on behalf of the group ranch. The suit was improperly instituted against individuals named as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 556 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nkoirisha Ole Ntompo Kereru & Four Others; Defendant: The Chairman Lorngosua Group Ranch & Nine Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 269 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out on preliminary objection
- Legal Topics
- Group Ranch Suing Capacity, Corporate Personality, Striking Out Suit
- 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
Nkoirisha Ole Ntompo Kereru & Four Others
Plaintiff
The Chairman Lorngosua Group Ranch & Nine Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the persons sued have the legal capacity to be sued in their individual or official names instead of the group representatives as a body corporate.
- 2 Whether the suit as filed is competent in law given the requirements of the Land (Group Representations) Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under the Land (Group Representations) Act, only the group representatives named in the certificate of incorporation, acting in their corporate capacity, have the legal capacity to sue or be sued on behalf of the group ranch. The suit was improperly instituted against individuals named as officials or members, rather than the group representatives as a body corporate. This defect went to the root of the suit and rendered it incompetent in law. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld, and the suit was struck out with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit struck out on preliminary objection
Orders
- The suit filed on 19th February and amended on 30th April, 2001 is struck out with costs to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 269 OF 2001
NKOIRISHA OLE NTOMPO KERERU
& FOUR OTHERS ………………………………………………. PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN LORNGOSUA GROUP
RANCH & NINE OTHERS …………………………………. DEFNEDANTS
R U L I N G
According to a certificate of incorporation dated 10th December, 1991 Lonngusua Group Ranch has the following group representatives namely:
1. Nkaiyioen Maseke
2. Nkachoni Sikanyi
3. Lengen Kiado
4. Stephen Kasana
5. Kime Chuan Kipareu
6. Tipape Munyee
7. Suakei Mukulele
8. Tulito Kamuana
9. Paetoti Lekumok
10. Daniel Lemomo
This certificate does not show whether there are or who the officials are But under Section 7(3) of the Land (Group Representations) Act, Chapter 287 Laws of Kenya,
“Upon the issue of a certificate of incorporation, the persons named in it as group representatives shall thereupon become the group representatives of the group and a body corporate with the name specified in the certificate, and shall have perpetual Succession, and the persons elected to be the officers of the group shall become the officers of the group”.
From this provision, it appears that the group representatives with the name specified in the certificate, in this case “Lonngusua”, are what becomes a body corporate with perpetual succession.
It is the group representatives which is conferred with powers to sue and be sued under Section 8(1) of the Act, in their corporate capacity and not officers or members of the group ranch in their official or individual names.
Given this background and the clear provision of the law, it is my view that the notice of preliminary objection filed herein on 22nd March, 2001 raises important points of law which goes to the root of the suit to the extend of invalidating it.
Counsel for the respondents agrees that he has sued persons, named in the certificate as officials of the group ranch and/or that the plaint has adequately the parties and/or in what capacity they have been sued does not counter the provisions of the law which the court has cited above as who has capacity in this type of case to sue or be sued.
I uphold the preliminary objection and strike out the suit filed herein on 19th February and amended on 30th April, 2001 with costs.
Delivered and dated this 22nd day of May, 2001.
D.K.S AGANYANYA
JUDGE