[2016] KEHC 5077 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was not the registered owner of the vehicles in question, and thus could not claim rights under the society's by-laws or the Traffic Act. Granting leave would contravene statutory requirements regarding vehicle registration and ownership. Furthermore, the Cooperative Societies...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5077 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Nanyuki Express Cabs Savings & Credit Co-operative Society; Respondent: Cooperative Societies Tribunal; Applicant: Elijah Mutheki Mbugua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 3 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Orders
- Outcome
- Application for leave dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari and Prohibition, Cooperative Societies Disputes, Tribunal Jurisdiction
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Nanyuki Express Cabs Savings & Credit Co-operative Society
Respondent
Cooperative Societies Tribunal
Respondent
Elijah Mutheki Mbugua
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against the respondents.
- 2 Whether the society's decision to expel the applicant and deny vehicle access was lawful under the Traffic Act and society by-laws.
- 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter while proceedings subsist before the Cooperative Societies Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was not the registered owner of the vehicles in question, and thus could not claim rights under the society's by-laws or the Traffic Act. Granting leave would contravene statutory requirements regarding vehicle registration and ownership. Furthermore, the Cooperative Societies Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between members and the society, and the applicant's action in the High Court while proceedings were pending before the Tribunal amounted to an abuse of process. The court concluded that the application for leave was without merit and dismissed it with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application for leave dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Orders
- The chamber summons dated 15th February 2016 is dismissed with costs to all respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NANYUKI
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 3 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ELIJAH MUTHEKI MBUGUA FOR LEAVE
TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES ACT (CAP 400) LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS ACT NO. 4 OF 2015
AND
IN THE MATTER OF CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC..........................................................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
NANYUKI EXPRESS CABS
SAVINGS & CREDITCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY..................1ST RESPONDENT
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES TRIBUNAL...............................2ND RESPONDENT
AND
ELIJAH MUTHEKI MBUGUA..........................................EX PARTE APPLICANT
SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S RULING
1. ELIJAH MUTHEKI MBUGUA a former member of Nanyuki Express Cabs Saving & Credit Co-operative Society Limited has brought this action seeking for leave to file for prerogative orders.
2. He seeks leave to file for certiorari order, to have the decision of the society to denying motor vehicle KBW 474 Z and KBS 830 V right to access the society’s Bus Park and the decision of the society to expel him from the society’s membership removed to this court for quashing. He also sought for leave to file order of mandamus to order the society to permit the aforesaid vehicles to park at the society’s bus park and to order the society to cancel the expulsion of Elijah from the society. Finally he seeks leave to file for order of prohibition to prohibit the society from preventing the aforesaid vehicles accessing the society’s bus park and preventing the society from expelling Elijah from its membership.
3. Having considered the submissions of the parties the court made the following determination:
(a) To grant leave as sought would be in contravention of section 8 and 9 of the Traffic Act Cap 403 which requires a vehicle which has changed ownership to have its registration changed to reflect that transfer and that change of ownership to be effected in the register within 14 days of such transfer or change. To grant such leave would also be to allow enforcement of illegal contracts in view of the above provisions of the Traffic Act.
(b) Under clause 7 of the society’s by-laws membership of the society is, amongst others, is open to those who own matatu. Elijah by the Exhibits he produced before court was not the owner of the matatus to which the society’s impugned decision was directed.
(c) The filing of this action while the case before the tribunal subsisted is an abuse of the court’s process for it is tantamount to inviting two determinations over the same matter.
(d) The Tribunal has jurisdiction as provided under section 76 of the Co-operative societies Act Cap 490 to determine any dispute between members or between members and the society. Emphasis is laid on the word any. It follows that the decision of the society is within the purview of that section.
(e) The tribunal by virtue of section 7 of the Fair Administration Action Act No. 4 of 2015 has jurisdiction to entertain an action under that Act.
4. In the end the finding of the court is that the chamber summons dated 15th February 2016 is without merit and is dismissed with costs to all the respondents.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant:……………………………
Applicant …………………………………..
Exparte applicant:……………………….
1st Respondent: …………………………….
2nd Respondent
For Applicants ……………………………….
For Respondents: ………………………
COURT
Summary of the court’s ruling read in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE