[2019] KEHC 8993 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8993 (KLR)

The court found that the petition did not raise genuine constitutional issues requiring the court's intervention. The alleged violations pertained to internal church governance and the application of the church constitution, not the Bill of Rights or the national constitution. The court held that the Boundary Review...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 8993 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Reverend Peter Inuani (acting on behalf of membership of Chavugami PAG-(K) Church District); Respondent: Reverend Solomon Keverenge; Respondent: Reverend Zachary Mateni (enjoined on behalf of the Boundary Review Commission of PAG-(K) Church); Interested Party: Reverend Patrick Lihanda (enjoined on behalf of the PAG-(K) Church)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 25 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Competence and Merits of Petition
Outcome
Petition struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents and interested party.
Judges
CM Njagi
Legal Topics
Right to Worship, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Church Governance, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right to Worship Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Church Governance Jurisdiction of High Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reverend Peter Inuani (acting on behalf of membership of Chavugami PAG-(K) Church District)

Applicant

Reverend Solomon Keverenge

Respondent

Reverend Zachary Mateni (enjoined on behalf of the Boundary Review Commission of PAG-(K) Church)

Respondent

Reverend Patrick Lihanda (enjoined on behalf of the PAG-(K) Church)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Competence and Merits of Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition raises constitutional or justiciable issues to warrant the court's jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the minutes of 14th July 2015 are valid operating rules for the Boundary Review Commission (BRC).
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' actions violated the petitioner's right to worship.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petition did not raise genuine constitutional issues requiring the court's intervention. The alleged violations pertained to internal church governance and the application of the church constitution, not the Bill of Rights or the national constitution. The court held that the Boundary Review Commission's operating rules were validly formulated, as the church constitution did not prescribe a specific process or format, and there was no evidence of procedural impropriety or lack of quorum. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of constitutional rights, particularly the right to worship or personal security. The court emphasized that the...

Court Disposition

Petition struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents and interested party.

Orders

  • The petition is struck out for being incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents and interested party.