Amos Mathenge Kabuthu v Registrar of Societies, Paul Ndungu Ndichu, Philip Kubai & Paul Watoro Gichu [2017] KEHC 7793 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  408 & 451 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

AND

FREEDOMS   UNDER ARTICLES 27, 32,36,47,48 & 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SOCIETIES ACT, CAP 108, LAWS OF KENYA

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 21 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE AFRICA INDEPENDENT PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF AFRICA & NAIROBI   BRANCH

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEDING ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED ELECTION OF THE PERSONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE ARCHBISHOP

AMOS MATHENGE KABUTHU………………....…..APPLICANT

VERSUS

REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES……………………...RESPONDENT

PAUL NDUNGU NDICHU………………………....1ST INTERESTED PARTY

PHILIP KUBAI……………………………………..2ND INTERESTED PARTY

PAUL WATORO GICHU………………………….3RD INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

1. Before this court  for determination under certificate  of urgency is a Notice of Motion dated 4th January  2017  brought  under  the provisions  of  Section (5) (1) of the  Judicature Act, Articles 159, 160 of the Constitution and other enabling provisions of the law. The application seeks  for orders:

1. Spent

2. Spent

3. Spent

4. That pending  interpartes  hearing of  his  application on the  18th January 2017, status quo in favour of the applicant  to be maintained, in the alternative an order directing that the respondents their  servants, agents, interested  parties  not to  interfere more so access or ingress the AIPCA Bahati Headquarters  for  the purpose of carrying  out the intended  elections  to be held on 9th January  2017.

5. That  this Honourable Court be pleased to find  that the  interested  parties  herein  who are  claiming  through or  under the  1st respondent  (Registrar  of Societies) are in contempt   of court for   the disobedience  of the  orders  issued by  this court on  the  27th  September  2016.

6. That  upon granting  of prayers  No. 1,2,3 above the court be  pleased to impose  a fine of  kshs of  1,000,000 (one million) against  Paul Ndungu  Ndichu, Phillip Kubai & Paul  Watoro  Gichu.

7. That  upon granting  prayers  1,2,3 above, the court  be pleased  to order  that the  interested parties  herein Paul Ndungu  Ndichu, Phillip Kubai & Paul  watoro  Gichu(purporting  to  be elected, current  acting  Archbishop  be committed  to civil jail  for a  period  of six months.

8. That  pending interpartes  hearing   of this application OCPD  Buruburu  Police  Station, OCS  Jogoo Road  Police  station or the Makadara  AP Commandant  or any other  Kenya  Police Administration ensure  compliance  of orders  issued  on  28th September  2016 by this court  and in the alternative order  4 above.

9. That costs of the application be provided for.

2. The application is supported by the supporting affidavit sworn by Amos Kabuthu Mathenge   on 4th January 2017 and annextures thereto.

3. According to the applicant’s depositions    this court  on 27th September  2016  ordered  for  stay of registration  of elected   officials  vide elections  slated for    27th  September  2016  and that   the stay affected the  office of Archbishop; That the 1st respondent   is aware of that order  of stay but  has proceeded  to issue  letter  slating  elections for 9th January  2017  vide  her letter  dated  3rd  January  2017;That the 3rd interested party  has  assumed office  of Secretary  General   of the AIPCA Church without any  candor nor  colour  of law   performing  functions  that  are illegal, prejudicial so as to defeat   justice; That the intended  authorized  elections by the  1st respondent is colluding   or being   partisan hence  malicious   and  prejudicial  and  in contempt   of court orders  of this  court issued on  28th September  2016  and that  the intended   elections  venue  will  inhibit , interfere with  the AIPCA  school academic  programme, since the said  school is  situate  at Bahati  Headquarters; That the  applicant is  apprehensive  that OCS  Jogoo  Road  will  provide  security to the respondents  and interested  parties to forcefully eject  him out of the AIPCA  Bahati  Headquarters  at Nairobi; That the main   motion  in this matter is slated for hearing  on 18th January  2017,  this court  should safeguard  the status quo;That contempt  proceedings   have  been commenced  vide application filed on  19th December  2016;That actions  and  inactions  of the interested  parties  have affected the running  of the church and that the 2nd interested  party claims   to be or has bestowed  himself   as the current  acting  Archbishop  of AIPCA;That  an illegality shall be committed  if the orders   sought are not granted; and that it is  subjudice  for the actions  or inactions of the interested  parties  and the 1st  respondent   if they  proceed to elections  thereby  interfering  with the office  of Archbishop of  AIPCA church.

4. The application  was opposed by  the  2nd, 3rd  respondents   and the interested  parties, through the grounds of opposition filed on  6th January  2017  this morning wherein  they contend  that the application is incurably defective  in law, the intended   elections   were sanctioned  by court of   equal  status  in a ruling  delivered  on  27th October   2016; question of eligibility  to vote  were determined  by the  court of  equal   status   on      1st September 2016  ruling; this court never stopped  any  elections; there is no order that  has been  disobeyed  by this court; and that the   application dated  4th January  2017  is an abuse of the  court process   and  should be   dismissed with costs.

5. Parties advocates  appeared  and  urged the  application orally  before me this morning   with Mr Odhiambo arguing  on behalf  of Mr Musyoka  for the applicant  and  Mr Makokha  counsel for the 2nd, 3rd respondents and interested parties  in the consolidated  matters.

6. Mr Odhiambo reiterated  the grounds  as deposed   in  the affidavit  of his client, the applicant  Amos  Kabuthu Mathenge  sworn on 4th January  2017  adding that  this court had  allowed the  proceedings   herein to  continue  and that there is   pending the issue  of membership  hence there  should be stay  until the matter is heard  and  determined   interpartes  on 18th January.

7. In  response, Mr Makokha reiterated the grounds of  opposition  as filed on behalf  of his clients  and maintained  that no orders stopped  any impending  elections  and that  the orders  of this court  of  27th September 2016  have been  spent  since there was no registration  of elections officials.

8. Further, it   was submitted that the applicant was misleading this court   that orders of stay exist.  Counsel  maintained  that  ELRC  1220/2016  has settled  the issue  of  membership  and  vide  a ruling  of  27th October  2016  Honourable   Wasilwa J sanctioned  the scheduled   elections of  Archbishop,  not other  officials,  while  declaring that the applicant  herein Amos  Kabuthu Mathenge   has retired.

9. That the applicant  has challenged   the orders  of Wasilwa  J made   in ELRC 1220/2016   before the  Court of Appeal   but that  there is no  stay issued  hence a  retired  Archbishop  cannot  stop elections   from going on.

10. In addition,  that orders  of  27th  October  2016   sanctioning  elections also ordered  that the  1st  respondent  supervise the elections  and the OCS  Jogoo Road do facilitate security  during  elections hence the letter of the  Registrar   was issued  pursuant to the court  order of  27th October  2016  not in   disobedience  of this  court’s  orders.

11. Further, that the   orders of 1st September  2016   by Wasilwa J were specific  that Paul  Watoro  Gichu  remains   Chairman of the Central Board  of AIPCA which ruling   was also  appealed  against  and no stay  is in  force hence  the application herein  should be   dismissed with costs.

12. In a rejoinder  Mr Odhiambo  reiterated his earlier  submissions and  added  that his client   is preventing  a multiplicity  of suits  and that he acknowledges  the orders of  27th October 2016 from ELRC 1220/2016  as being  issued by a court  of competent  jurisdiction   but that if elections are not  stopped, then the directions of  this court  on 18th January  2017 will be  overtaken by events.

Determination

13. I have  carefully and  anxiously  considered  the applicant’s  application   dated  4th January  2017  which seeks  principally   two main orders:  committal  for contempt   and stay of   the impending   elections of  Archbishop  of AIPCA   slated for  9th January   2017  to be  supervised by the 1st   respondent  Registrar of  Societies as per  her letter  of  3rd January  2017  rescheduling the same from  6th January  2017  to Monday  9th January  2017.

14. The issue   for determination is whether the   prayers sought   are merited.

15. Commencing  with the prayer for   committal for  contempt, first  for contempt    of court to be  so declared  by any  court of law, there must  be proof of the existence   of a specific  court order and the proof  of specific  breaches   of that order.

16. Examining  the order  of this court made  on  27th September  2016, albeit  the applicant alleges  that it   stayed  elections  and any other   actions, I do not  agree.  The order granted   leave to  apply for   Judicial Review   order of prohibition  to prohibit  the respondents, their   agents  or servants from gazetting  any other  person to the office of the Archbishop  as the impending   election slated  on 27th September  2016 is in flagrant   disregard  of the law.  The court in granting   that prayer   exparte noted that the notice for elections was too short – 2 days to the date of elections.

17. In granting  stay, the court stated that the leave granted do operate  as stay of registration of  any persons elected into office of Archbishop  of AIPCA Nairobi  Branch vide  elections of  27th September  2016   until  the substantive  motion is heard and determined.

18. The proceedings  in this case  are predicated  on the elections   which  were  scheduled  for  27th September  2016. If those elections did not take place, then it   was   incumbent upon the applicant to amend his chamber summons to include the prayer prohibiting any other action related to the election of the Archbishop.  There  was  no prayer  for prohibition  of elections  of Archbishop but   registration or gazetting  of the elected  person into  office of the  Archbishop and the  order   was specific  to the “election” of  27th September   2016  and  no other.

19. That being  the case, in my  humble  view, there is  no order of this court staying  election of the Archbishop  and hence,  no such order is  capable of  being breached  thereby   inviting  penal sanctions.

20. On the second main prayer seeking for stay of elections scheduled for   9th January 2017 that prayer must be well grounded.  When leave to apply was granted on 27th September   2016, the applicant never   sought leave to prohibit conducting of any elections of Archbishop.

21. Accordingly, he cannot come to   court through an interlocutory application to seek stay orders yet there is no substantive   motion upon which such order can issue.

22. In addition, the applicant  withheld from this court   very serious  material facts, that  there   was an order of  27th October  2016  issued  in  ELRC 1220/2016  by Honourable Wasilwa J sanctioning the holding of elections for the AIPCA Archbishop  and that the   elections   be held  within  2 months   and be supervised  by the Registrar  of Societies  and  security be   provided by  the OCS  Jogoo Road  Police Station.  The judge   also declared the Archbishop Amos Mathenge as retired.  There is no denial that  those orders exist  and that the applicant   participated  in those proceedings  and even  filed an   appeal challenging  those orders   but there is  no stay of  enforcement  of those orders.

23. Albeit  9th January  2017  will be   outside the  2  months  period ordered   by the ELRC  court, this court   has no jurisdiction  to overturn  or  to superintend  or  supervise  the ELRC  court as  the ELRC court is  a court of equal status with  the  High Court  and is a superior   court as   contemplated in Articles   162(2) (a)  and  165(6)  of the Constitution.

24. It follows that the applicant    has been  abusing court process  by filing a multiplicity of cases  before   different  courts with  the  aim of achieving   the same   results  and  whenever  he loses  in one court, he jumps  into another court  hoping that he would get a favourable  outcome.

25. Therefore, albeit  the pending  proceedings  would be  rendered  nugatory if stay is  not issued  and elections   proceed, this court  finds that  the applicant   has not  come to  court with  clean hands.  His hands are soiled with pure lies and moreso, from a man of cloth (collar).

26. This court Enjoys inherent  jurisdiction  which is not donated  by any  statute  to make  any order  that is  meant  to prevent   abuse  of its  process where it is convicted  that is has been deceived, in order to preserve its  dignity  and the integrity  of judicial  process.

27. In this case, I find that the  applicant is   using the court process  for an improper purpose  and  with ulterior  motive for some collateral  purpose  other than  the desire to  access justice.  The law does not recognize   illegitimate   use of its process.  ( see  Stephen   Somek  Takwenyi & Another   Vs David  Mbuthia  Githare  & 2  Others  HCC  363/2009).

28. The  orders which  are being  sought in  these proceedings  are  equitable   and it is  an affront  to the rule  of law for the   applicant to  subject this court  to embarrassment   of sorts.

29. The orders  of 27th October  2016   having  been made  by a  court of competent   jurisdiction and  equal status  as this court and  as  this court  has no jurisdiction  to overturn, review, set  aside or  hear an  appeal from ELRC  court  which is a  superior   court,  I can  do no more  than down my tools  by  finding that the  application  before me, besides  being  an abuse of court process, excessively  is fatally incompetent  and it must   fail  on all its  fours.

30. Accordingly, the  applicant’s  application dated   4th January  2017  is hereby  struck out and  dismissed  with costs  to the   2nd, 3rd respondents and  interested parties.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi in open court this 6th day of January 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Odhiambo for the exparte applicant

Mr Makokha for the 2nd, 3rd respondents and interested parties

CA: Lorna