[2016] KEELC 657 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 657 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs, as shareholders of the 1st defendant company, were entitled to a fair and transparent process for the distribution of the company land. The defendants had failed to conduct such a process and did not defend the suit. The court saw no reason to deny the plaintiffs' prayers,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 657 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter K. Gitahi; Plaintiff: Ndungu Mugoya; Defendant: Akuisi Farmers Co. Ltd; Defendant: John Kagai
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 288 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' case allowed; orders granted as prayed.
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Company Land Distribution, Shareholder Rights, Balloting Procedure
Source Language
en
Land and Property Company Land Distribution Shareholder Rights Balloting Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter K. Gitahi

Plaintiff

Ndungu Mugoya

Plaintiff

Akuisi Farmers Co. Ltd

Defendant

John Kagai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be compelled to hold a fair and transparent balloting process to distribute company land to its members.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be restrained from disposing of or interfering with the land before balloting is done.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, as shareholders of the 1st defendant company, were entitled to a fair and transparent process for the distribution of the company land. The defendants had failed to conduct such a process and did not defend the suit. The court saw no reason to deny the plaintiffs' prayers, especially as the relief sought was simply to ensure fairness and transparency in the balloting and allocation of land. The court also noted that a previous attempt to resolve the matter before the Land Disputes Tribunal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, and that a previous judge had observed the need for the company to proceed with balloting. Accordingly, the court ordered the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' case allowed; orders granted as prayed.

Orders

  • The directors of Akuisi Farmers Company Limited shall hold a fair and transparent balloting exercise to distribute land parcels L.R Nos. 8943, 8944, and 9949 to its members.
  • The balloting exercise shall commence forthwith and be completed within six months from the date of judgment.