[2018] KEELC 3591 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff company remains the registered proprietor of the suit land, and the Defendants have not established any legal interest in the property. The Applicant's locus standi was upheld, as there was insufficient evidence to show she was not a director at the time of filing. The absence of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3591 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Valeo Building and Civil Engineering Limited; Defendant: Bernard Bosire; Defendant: Lazarus Kivuva
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 267 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application allowed; temporary injunction granted.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Company Locus Standi, Land Ownership Disputes, Directorship Disputes
- 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
Valeo Building and Civil Engineering Limited
Plaintiff
Bernard Bosire
Defendant
Lazarus Kivuva
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with Land Reference Number 20323 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the Applicant had locus standi to institute the suit and swear affidavits on behalf of the Plaintiff company.
- 3 Whether the absence of a board resolution invalidates the suit or application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff company remains the registered proprietor of the suit land, and the Defendants have not established any legal interest in the property. The Applicant's locus standi was upheld, as there was insufficient evidence to show she was not a director at the time of filing. The absence of a board resolution was not fatal, following the principle that any authorized director may institute proceedings unless the contrary is shown. The Plaintiff established a prima facie case for an injunction, as the Defendants' actions threatened the Plaintiff's proprietary rights. Accordingly, the application for a temporary injunction was allowed as prayed.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; temporary injunction granted.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is issued restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, family members, relatives, or anyone claiming under them from remaining, occupying, entering into, constructing any structure, transferring, selling, allocating, encumbering, dealing with or interfering with Land...
- The officer commanding Mlolongo Police Station to enforce this order and ensure law and order is maintained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 267 OF 2017
VALEO BUILDING AND CIVIL
ENGINEERING LIMITED.......................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
BERNARD BOSIRE.....................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
LAZARUS KIVUVA....................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 12th June, 2017, the Plaintiff is seeking for the following orders:
a. That a temporary injunction be issued to restrain the Defendants/Respondents, by themselves or through their agents, servants, employees, family members, relatives and or anybody else claiming under them from remaining, occupying, entering into, constructing any structure, transferring, selling, allocating, encumbering, dealing and or any other manner interfering with Land Reference Number 20323 pending hearing and determination of this suit.
b. That the officer commanding Mlolongo Police Station be served with this order to enforce this order and ensure law and order is maintained.
c. That the cost of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land reference number 20323 situate in Machakos; that on 26th May, 2017, the Defendants blocked the Plaintiff from fencing the suit land and that the Defendants are in the process of sub-dividing the suit land with a view of selling it to unsuspecting members of the public.
3. The Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection in which they averred that the Plaintiff lacks locus to institute the suit and that the Application is defective and an abuse of the court process.
4. In his Replying Affidavit, the 2nd Defendant deponed that the Applicant is not the Director of the Plaintiff’s company as alleged; that the Applicant relinquished her shares in the Applicant’s company and that the Applicant has concealed material facts from the court.
5. In the Further Affidavit, Susan Wambui (Applicant) deponed that she is a director and shareholder of the Plaintiff; that she has come to learn that changes were effected in the directorship and shareholding of the Plaintiff by removal of her name as a director and shareholder without her knowledge; that she has since complained about the alleged fraud and that her co-director, John Kibiribiri Mwangi, has since being charged with the offence of forgery.
6. The Plaintiff’s advocate submitted that the change of the Plaintiff’s directorship to remove the Applicant as a director was fraudulent; that the Applicant did not attend the meeting that purported to have taken place on 25th May, 2015 and that the people involved in the fraudulent transaction have been charged.
7. Counsel submitted that the other directors of the Applicant never raised the issue of her directorship when she filed the suit and that the Application should be allowed.
8. The Defendants’ advocate submitted that the deponent of the Supporting Affidavit is not a shareholder or director of the Plaintiff; that the Verifying and Supporting Affidavit have not been sworn by an officer authorized by the company and that in the absence of a resolution by the Board of Directors, there is no proper Plaintiff in court.
9. The Defendants have not disputed the allegation that the suit land is registered in the name of the Plaintiff. However, it is the Defendants’ deposition that the person who swore the Verifying Affidavit and the Supporting Affidavit (the Applicant)ceased to be a director and shareholder of the Plaintiff on 26th May, 2015.
10. The Applicant has denied that she signed the Affidavit of 26th May, 2015 relinquishing her shares in the Plaintiff’s company. According to the Applicant, John Kibiribiri Mwangi has been charged in Criminal Case No. 1892 of 2017 for forging the Minutes of the Plaintiff’s Board of Directors showing that she had relinquished her shares in the company.
11. The issue of whether the Applicant relinquished her shares in the Plaintiff’s company can only be determined either upon the hearing of this suit or after the criminal case that has been instituted has been finalized. However, the Plaintiff, as a legal entity, remains the registered owner of the suit land.
12. The Defendants have not informed the court the interests that they have in the suit land. Indeed, the 2nd Defendant has deponed that they have not trespassed on the suit land.
13. Although the Defendants have relied on the case of Bugerere Coffee Growers Limited vs. Sebaduka & Another (1970), E.A 147, where it was held that a resolution has to be passed either at a company or Board of Director’s meeting before the filing of proceedings, the said decision was overturned by the Ugandan Supreme Court in the case of United Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Attorney General SCCA No. 1 of 1998 where it was held as follows:-
“...it was now settled, as the law, that, it does not require a board of directors, or even the general meeting of members, to sit and resolve to instruct counsel to file proceedings on behalf and in the names of the company. Any director, who is authorized to act on behalf of the company, unless the contrary is shown, has the powers of the board to act on behalf of that company.”
14. The above decision has been applied by the Kenyan courts (See Frubeco China Fushun vs. Naiposha Company Limited & 11 others [2014] eKLR).
15. Until it is shown that the Applicant was not a director of the Plaintiff as at the time of filing the suit, I find that the suit is properly before me. In any event, the other directors of the Plaintiff have not alleged that the Applicant did not file the suit on behalf of the Plaintiff or that they do not support the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendants cannot therefore be heard at this stage to assert that the Applicant does not have the locus standi.
16. The bottom line is that the suit land is registered in favour of the Plaintiff and not the Defendants. Consequently, the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with chances of success. I therefore allow the Application dated 12th June, 2017 as prayed.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE