Auni Bhaiji, Erick Gitonga, Francis Omondi, Reuben Ndegwa & Benjamin Omollo (Suing as the officials of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association: Registration Certificate No. 36939) v Chief Magistrate, Milimani Law Courts, Nicholas A.Okello & Keynote Logistics Limited [2017] KEHC 2518 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  119 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 47, 50(1), 159(1) (2), 160(1) 165(6) AND (7) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53   OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER OF FAIR ADMINISTRATION ACTION ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT CIVIL CASE NO.  7107 OF 2016.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF NOTICE FOR SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING TO ELECT THE OFFICIALS OF KENYA INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT& WAREHOUSING ASSOCIATION

AND

IN MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

BETWEEN

AUNI BHAIJI

ERICK GITONGA

FRANCIS OMONDI

REUBEN NDEGWA

BENJAMIN OMOLLO .………………..…......................................APPLICANTS

(Suing as the officials of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association: Registration Certificate No. 36939)

VERSUS

CHIEF MAGISTRATE, MILIMANI LAW COURTS…........…1ST RESPONDENT

NICHOLAS A.OKELLO……………………………............2ND RESPONDENT

KEYNOTE LOGISTICS LIMITED……....……………...INTERESTED PARTY

JUDGMENT

1. The exparte applicants in this case are Auni Bhaiji, Eric Gitonga, Francis  Omondi, Reuben  Ndegwa  and  Benjamin  Omollo all suing  as  the officials  of the Kenya  International Freight  & Warehousing  Association,  Registration No. 36939.

2. Vide their  notice of motion dated  23rd  March 2017  filed with  leave of court granted on 16th March 2017, the exparte applicants  seek the following  order from  court:

1) An order  of certiorari  to remove  into the High Court   and  quash  the decision of the  1st respondent made on  14th October  2016, 8th  December  2016, 20th December  2016 and 10th March 2017 and  all consequential  orders and  actions  thereof in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court,  Milimani  Law Courts  Civil case  No. 7107  of  2016: Keynote  Logistics  Limited & 41 Others vs  Auni Bhaiji &  Others.

2) Spent

3) Spent

4) The cost of the application be granted to the exparte applicants.

3. The motion is supported by a statutory statement, verifying  affidavit  and  exhibits/annextures  accompanying  the  chamber summons  for  leave dated  15th March  2017  and  a supporting  affidavit.

4. The exparte  applicant’s case is that the interested parties  herein  Keynote Logistics Limited and 41 Others filed Milimani CMCC No. 7107  of  2016  challenging  the legality of training  levy imposed by the exparte applicants and seeking  a permanent  injunction  to restrain  the  exparte applicants  from levying  the  said  training levy fees for  purposes  of clearance  for  the renewal  of the customs  agents license  for the  2017  year.

5. Simultaneous with the filing of  the said  suit, the interested  parties  filed an  interlocutory  application seeking and  indeed  obtained an exparte temporary injunction restraining  the exparte applicants from levying the alleged illegal fees until the  hearing  and  determination of the application.  This was on 14th October   2016.

6. It is claimed that  upon granting of the temporary exparte  injunction, on  14th October  2016   the  1st  respondent  further directed  that the application be heard on  31st October 2016    which  was  way after  elapse of  14 days hence  the orders  were ultra vires and in violation of Order 40 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

7. It is  further alleged that the Magistrate’s  Court in granting the exparte injunction determined the legality of the fees  purportedly   levied by  the exparte  applicants without  hearing both parties to the suit and   that therefore  the applicants  were denied  the  right to  be heard before  a determination  of  the legality  of the fees   was made.

8. Further to the above complaints it is alleged that on 8th December   2016  after amending  the plaint to  include  more orders, the interested parties obtained from the 1st respondent  further  exparte orders restraining the  exparte applicants  from operating any bank accounts on behalf of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association pending  hearing and determination  of the application and the interpartes  hearing  was  set for 20th December 2016, which exparte injunction stalled the  operations  of the  exparte  applicants.

9. It is  further  alleged that  on 20th  December  2016   when the  application  dated  8th December  2016  came up for  hearing, the plaintiff/interested parties  filed another  application which the 1st  respondent  heard exparte  and granted  orders extending  the orders made on  8th December  2016   indefinitely which  was  in violation of  Order  40  Rule  4 of  the  Civil Procedure Rules.  The  said orders  of 20th December 2016  further  restrained  the  exparte  applicants herein from conducting  operations  on  behalf  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association pending  further  orders on  20th January  2017  which is  said to be  in excess  of order  40 Rule  4  of the Civil Procedure  Rules as  the  temporary injunction was to  last more  than 14 days  from the date  it  was  issued.

10. The exparte   applicants  raise  objections regarding  the legality  of the exparte  injunction granted by the  1st  respondent  and the fact  that the said  exparte  orders  lapsed  pursuant  to order  40 Rule  4  of the Civil Procedure  Rules, yet the  1st respondent has never determined the applications interpartes, which applications  and orders  issued  have stalled  the  operations  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association.

11. That on 10th March 2017 when the officials of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association had been  summoned to attend the court following allegations of resignation of the  Secretary General of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association, another  application  which had  only  been presented  to court the previous  day by the plaintiff was heard  despite  protests  by the defendants  officials of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association upon  which the  1st respondent  issued  an order  for  a special general  meeting  to be convened  by the  existing  officials or any other member within 7 days which order  allegedly  violated  the  provisions  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association’s constitution which stipulates  on how  a special  general meeting shall  be  convened. Further,  that the  order for  a special general  meeting   was vague  and unclear  as it  did not provide  the purpose of the special  general meeting.

12. It  was  claimed that  the order for special  general meeting violated Clause 23(c) of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association constitution  which stipulates  that the NEC  vacancy  caused by death or resignation shall  be  filled by  the committee  until  the  next  Annual Delegate  Meeting  or Annual  General Meeting   hence the  1st respondent  failed to  take into  account  relevant  considerations  in ordering   for  a special general meeting.

13. It was further asserted that the court order  was in violation of Clause  19(a)  of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association constitution  which requires  a notice of any  general meeting  to be  sent out  not less than 21 days  prior to  the  scheduled  meeting.

14. It  was  further alleged  that pursuant  to the  orders of the 1st respondent magistrate made on 10th March  2017, the  2nd respondent   Nicholas A. Okello published in the Daily Nation Newspaper  calling  for a special general  meeting  scheduled  for  16th March  2017  with the  agenda  of electing  new office  bearers  for the respective  branch  Management  Committees  which   was in violation  of Clause  17(b), 19  and  23( c)  of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association hence it is  in the interest  of justice that the 1st  respondent’s  orders of  14th October 2016, 8th December  2016, 20th  December  2016  and  10th March  2017  and the  notices issued by the  2nd  respondent  on  11th March  2017  be quashed.

15. The above  is the gist  of the  matters deposed in the verifying  affidavit  of Francis  Omondi  sworn on  15th March  2017  and the accompanying  statutory  statement.

16. The 1st respondent never participated in these proceedings.  The  2nd respondent  and the  interested  party filed their  replying  affidavits on 30th March  2017  through  the law firm of  Maanzo & Company  Advocates  contending  that the suit  before  the  1st respondent was founded on merit seeking the court’s  intervention to resolve  issues of  management  and  running  of the Association  and  more particularly  to prevent  arbitrary running of the affairs of the  Association by the former  officials.

17. It  was further contended  that if the orders  sought  herein   were allowed then it would mean that a party who has filed a  competent suit   in the lower  court  and  who had not  disobeyed   any order of  the  court  would be  denied a  chance to  prosecute the  case on  merit   merely  because  another party  had filed  for  a blanket  review  of all orders  issued.

18. It  was also contended  that curtailing  jurisdiction of the lower court  is an  affront  to justice  and  a panacea to  the litany  of setbacks members faced  day by  day due to poor  representation by the applicants.  That in any event, the applicants participated in the proceedings in the lower court and that the orders therein were only interim and were only extended on application.

19. It  was  contended  that these  proceedings  seek to  reevaluate  the  evidence and  yet  this court  is merely  supervisory  of the lower court and  is limited only to  ascertaining whether the  magistrate  acted lawfully.  In this  case it  was  contended that the magistrate  had jurisdiction to determine  the issues  placed  before him  and that  he did not act  ultra vires.

20. The 2nd respondent and interested parties contended that in any event, the applicants should have appealed against the orders of the trial magistrate.  It  was contended that the application  envisages  further  wrangling  aimed at  defeating  member’s  progress in the case  and  being delayed  licensing  for  2017  against member’s   interests.  It  was  contended  that the  applicant  had not  demonstrated  that the  orders  which are  complained  of are so  absurd  that no  sensible  person could ever  dream  that they  lay within the  court’s  mandate.

21. Further, that misconstruing a statute cannot be a ground for review.  In addition, it  was contended that the notice for  special general meeting  was  issued pursuant  to Clause  17(B)  (1) of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association constitution and the order issued on  10th March 2017.

22.  It was contended that the applicant’s motion was  manifestly  malafides  and  violates  the  legitimate  expectations of  the  members of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association to demand for  accountability, professionalism  in the  up to the  expiry  of the exparte  applicant’s  term of office  as stipulated   in the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association constitution hence the exparte  applicant  did not  deserve  the  Judicial Review orders  sought in the  motion.

23. This matter  was  canvassed  by way  of oral submissions  by the parties’  advocates  albeit  the  2nd  respondent   and the interested  parties counsel Mr Ojienda  Seth also filed  written  submissions  on 25th September  2017.

24. According to the exparte applicants’ counsel Mr Nyamodi, prayer Nos  2 and   3  had been overtaken  by events.  Counsel therefore abandoned those prayers and argued prayers  Nos 1 and  4  of the  notice of motion.

25. According to Mr  Nyamodi, the  Magistrate’s  Court’s  orders of  14th October  2016,  8th December  2016,  20th December  2016   and  10th March  2017  had the effect  of  paralyzing  the affairs  and  operations  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association on the conduct  of  special general meeting.

26. It  was submitted that  the  orders  were granted  exparte  on each  occasion thereby denying the exparte applicants  an  opportunity  to be heard  to ventilate  their grievances.  That   the orders were final.  It  was  also submitted  that the issue of  levy  of  fees  between  the  applicant  and its members  was unrelated  to the  orders of  freezing  the  accounts  which latter  order was never  an issue before  the  Honourable Magistrate.

27. Further, that there  was no prayer  for the freezing  of accounts  and  or for conducting   of special general meeting  hence the court  had no power to  grant  temporary  reliefs  on those issues  as the reliefs  did not flow  from the plaint as filed.  It was submitted that the court therefore abused its processes.  It   was  submitted that  the  conduct  of the magistrate  in the impugned  proceedings  called for supervisory  jurisdiction of this court to  remedy the situation under Article 16(6) and (7) of the Constitution and  that the provisions  of Order  40 Rule  4  of the Civil Procedure Rules is clear on the length of exparte  injunctions, which rule was flouted in the instant case. The applicant’s counsel sought for orders In terms of prayers Nos 1 and 4 of the motion.

28. In opposition to the motion, Mr  Seth Ojienda  counsel  for the  2nd respondent  and for the interested parties  submitted  that there  were  no proceedings  from the Magistrate’s Court for this Court to interrogate and   inform itself   of what had  transpired  since all the  applications  had fully  been settled  and  that none  was pending.

29. It  was  submitted that it  was  within the  jurisdiction  of the Magistrate’s  Court to deal  with the matters before it  and that  these proceedings  were initiated  6 months  after the  impugned  orders  were issued .  In Mr Ojienda’s  view, the  Magistrate’s  orders  should  have been  challenged by way of  review  to the same  court or  appealed  against.

30. It  was  submitted by Mr Ojienda that there are no proceedings  beyond  the  interpartes  dates given  by the magistrate’s court hence  the submissions  by the applicant’s counsel were not  factual  and  that  there  was  no evidence  to support  any   procedural  shortfalls  or illegalities  alleged by  the  applicant.

31. Further, that  it  was difficult  to prove any imputation  of bad  faith  on the part of the  magistrate’s court hence  the standards  for  certiorari had not been met.  Counsel  also submitted  that the  court could  nonetheless call for the lower court record to  inform itself  of what  had transpired  to satisfy  itself  of  the  complaint  before it.

32. In a brief  reply Mr Nyamodi for the exparte applicants submitted  that the impugned  orders  are annexed  to the proceedings hereto  and that  there were no depositions that applications giving  rise to  the  orders  that are  impugned  herein were  heard and disposed  of but that Mr Seth Ojienda was submitting  from the  bar.

33. It  was  submitted that the application  was premised  on the conduct of the magistrate  demonstrated  by the impugned  orders but that nonetheless, this court has  jurisdiction to call for the  trial file   and  satisfy  itself of the  position and make appropriate orders.

34. It  was  submitted on behalf of the exparte applicants that the  orders  freezing  bank accounts  and  ceasing  operations  of the  applicant   had brought  the affairs   of the applicant  to  a standstill hence the court should  grant the orders sought.

35. After  the parties’ counsels  had submitted, the  court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction espoused in Article 165(6)and (7)  of the Constitution directed the  Deputy Registrar of the Court to call for the  case file  No. 1707/2016  pending before the  Milimani Commercial Courts Chief Magistrates Court  and the file  was  expeditiously  availed for  perusal by this court, to ensure  that the court  makes orders in this case that  are fair  and  just in the  administration of justice.

DETERMINATION

36. Before determining the merits  of this matter, it is therefore  important  to mention that the court  accorded all  the parties  an opportunity  to attempt  an out of court  settlement  but they returned  back to court  without  a  settlement  and that is the reason for the delay  in its disposal, having  regard to the  circumstances  of this case which   was brought  before the court  at the 12th hour of  16th March  2017, the day that the 1st respondent  court had  directed  a special general meeting of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association to be  held.

37. Having considered all the matters raised by the parties’  pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, submissions, authorities –statutory and case law  as well as constitutional provisions cited together  with  what I have gathered  from a careful examination of the lower court  file Milimani CM CC 7107/2016, in my humble view, the main issue for  determination  is whether  the  impugned  orders of  14th October  2016; 8th December  2016; 20th December 2016 and  10th March 2017  and all consequential  orders  and actions  of the trial  magistrate in Milimani CM CC 7107/2016  Keynote  Logistics  Limited  & 41 Others v Auni Bhaiji  & Others  were made   without jurisdiction; with procedural impropriety, were irrational or unreasonable; were  made without  taking  into account  relevant  consideration or took into  account  irrelevant  considerations; were made  in breach  of the exparte  applicant’s  legitimate expectations to be given a fair hearing by the magistrate’s court  and therefore whether  the  prayers  sought are  available  to the applicant.

38. The answers to the above  main  issue can  be found from the record  of pleadings  and  proceedings of the Magistrate’s  Court in Milimani  CM CC 7107/2016  which I have  meticulously perused, and the parties’ respective advocates’ able submissions.

39. At  the center  of the dispute between  the  exparte  applicants  and the interested  parties is the management  and  running of affairs of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association(KIFWA) of which  the exparte  applicants were at the material time to these  proceedings allegedly elected  officials; and the interested  parties(plaintiffs in the  lower court  who are  members of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing(Association).

40. On  14th October  2016  the interested  parties  instituted  a  plaint  before the  Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani   seeking  the  sole order  of a permanent  injunction  restraining  the  applicants  herein from  levying  illegal  fees for purposes  of clearance  for the renewal  of the custom  agents license  for the year 2017  which year  is nearing  the end.

41. Simultaneous with the filing of the said suit  the interested  parties also filed  an application for an injunction seeking similar  orders as  those in the  plaint  and the trial magistrate  granted to the interested parties  an exparte  order  of injunction  restraining the applicants  herein from  levying  illegal  fees for  purposes of clearance  or the renewal  of the customs agent’s license  for the year 2017 until the hearing  and determination of the application  interpartes on 31st  October  2016 .

42. Order 40 Rules (1) –(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates that:

1) Where the court   is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, it may hear the application exparte.

2) An exparte  injunction may be  granted once  for not  more than  14 days  and  shall not be  extended thereafter  except  once by consent  of the parties  or by the  order of the  court for  a period not  exceeding  fourteen days.

3) In any  case where  the  court grants  an exparte  injunction  the  applicant shall within  three days from the date of  issue of the order serve the order, the application and  pleadings on the party  sought to be  restrained.  In default of service of any of the documents specified under this rule, the injunction shall automatically lapse.

4) All applications under this order shall be heard expeditiously and in any event within sixty days from the date of filing unless the court for good reasons extends time.

43. From the mandatory provisions of the above Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, no doubt, the exparte  injunction having been  granted on  14th October  2016, the law  above  quoted  required that it lasts  for 14  days  only.  In this  case,  14 days  lapsed  on  28th October  2016, which was  a Friday  working  day not a public  holiday or weekend.  It follows that as at  31st October  2016  which  was  a Monday, was the  17th day  was outside  the  14 days.

44. As at  31st October  2016  there  was  therefore no injunction  in place, not even  for purposes  of extension by the court under  Order  40 Rule  2 of the  Civil Procedure  Rules, since the original injunction which was issued exparte was given to last for more than 14 days.

45. In addition, although the affidavit  of service  filed  in court  on 27th October 2016  by Michael Njonjo  claims that  a hearing notice   was  served  upon the  defendant’s  advocates Muchui & company Advocates, that affidavit of service is  in respect  of  CMCC 57/2007 Francis Mburu Njuguna & Others vs Collingale  Robert  Martin  & Another and  has  no relation with the  civil suit  7107/2016.

46. There is no evidence from the  court file in the lower court  to show  that the  exparte  orders  of  injunction issued   on  14th October  2016    were served  upon the applicants  within  3 days of the  date of issue.

47. There is also  no evidence to show that the  application  and the pleadings   were served  upon the  applicant  party  sought to be  restrained  within the stipulated  3  days of issue.

48. Sub rule  (3)  of Order  40 of the Civil procedure Rules is clear that where service  of any of documents  specified  above in the rule  are not effected, the  injunction  so granted shall  automatically  lapse.  The lower court  record  examined by this court under  Article  165(6)  and  (7)  of the Constitution shows that  on  29th November  2016  some of the  plaintiffs one by one  file court  notices  to withdraw  suit against  the  exparte  applicants  herein  and  up to  that moment  there is no affidavit   of service filed  on record to show  that the defendants were ever served with the injunctive orders/ pleadings and  applications  within  3 days of issue of the exparte injunction.

49. However, the defendants  filed a  replying  affidavit  on 22nd November  2016   responding  to the application dated  14th October  2016  upon which  the plaintiffs  filed a further affidavit  on  2nd December  2016.

50. Soon thereafter, on 8th December  2016   the  plaintiff  interested  parties  herein who  had not  even taken out summons  to enter appearance  in the matter, ( as  the typed  and  unsigned  copies   of summons to enter appearance  are still  domiciled in the court file with no seal, signature   or date of  issue),  filed  an amended  plaint  enjoining  officials’  names of the  exparte applicants as well as the Nairobi branch while seeking additional prayers of permanent  injunction  restraining the  exparte  applicants  and their agents  from engaging  other  stakeholders  in particular, Kenya Revenue Authority (sic) on behalf   of the resolution passed by members  at  the Annual General Meeting  or through  a special  general meeting; and  also a permanent injunction restraining  the applicants from opening new accounts or conducting operations of Kenya International Freight &Warehousing Association without authorization from members through Annual General Meeting  or  Special General Meeting.

51. Simultaneous  with the filing  of the amended  plaint above, the interested  parties filed  an application seeking interim  orders  in respect   of the new  added  prayers, exparte. As at that time,   the  1st application  dated  14th October 2016  had not been heard  interpartes  and  no, summons  to enter appearance  had been taken out  and or served.

52. The handwriting for the  trial magistrate  who presided over the proceedings on 14th October 2016, 31st October 2016, 14th November  2016  and  5th December 2016  can hardly  be read by a person who is unfamiliar with it as  it is scribbled  in indecipherable  writing but  what  I can gather  from the  scribbles  and  impressions I.E.O. is that  on 14th November  2016  the  trial magistrate extended the injunctive order of 14th October  2016 to 5th December  2016  for interpartes  hearing.  On  5th December  2016  the  trial court again extended the interim  orders to  20th January  2017.

53. However, as  I  have stated, the exparte  injunction  granted on 14th October  2016  not  having  been served within  3  days  with the application  and  pleadings, and  having been  granted to last for over  14  days   was no injunction  at all as it lapsed  on  28th October  2016  hence there  was nothing  as at  31st October 2016  and 14th November 2016 or even on 5th December  2016  for extension, not even by  consent.  The  court could  only have reissued the injunction on the dates  subsequent  the   14th October  2016  exparte  orders which  lapsed on 28th October 2016.

54. Despite the  above position, on  8th December  2016  Honourable  D.O. Mbeja ( SRM) entertained  correctly so, an urgent  application dated the same  day  and  after ordering for service  for  interpartes  hearing  on 20th December  2016  granted  prayer 2  of the application exparte. Again, the prayer sought for an injunction restraining the applicants herein from operating bank accounts for the KIWA.

55. On 20th December 2016,  there was no evidence that the  exparte  orders and  application  dated 8th December  2016  had been  served but what was placed before the Honourable Mbeja (SRM) is another application by the plaintiffs/interested parties herein under certificate of  urgency  dated  20th December  2016  exparte  and the trial magistrate directed  service upon the defendants for interpartes hearing on 20th January  2017  before Honourable  Orenge  SRM, after granting  prayers 2 and 3 of the application exparte in the interim  pending  hearing  interpartes.

56. The order granted in terms of the prayer was an injunction restraining the applicants herein from conducting operations of KIFWA. This prayer is a replica of prayer no 3 and 4 of the application dated 8th December, 2016. The interested parties also sought for an order for extension of the exparte orders of 8th December, 2016.

57. As at that time, no doubt, the application dated 14th October 2016, and 8th December 2016 were not being mentioned and were still pending before the court for hearing and determination interpartes.

58. Needless to  reiterate that that the application dated  20th December  2016  was  also seeking  to extend  the  orders  of 8th December  which  were expected  to be considered  on 20th December  2016  interpartes and for another injunction restraining the defendants( applicants) herein  from conducting  the operations on behalf of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association pending hearing and determination of the application, a replica  of prayers  3  and  4 of the notice  of motion dated 8th December 2016  and  was  an injunctive  prayer  which  was granted  exparte  until  20th January  2017.

59. Going back to Order  40  of the Civil Procedure  Rules, there is  no evidence that the orders granted on 8th December  2016  and  20th December  2016  exparte were served  upon the persons sought to be restrained within  3 days of issue together  with the pleadings and the application.  So when the orders of   8th December  2016  were being  extended  on 20th December  2016  to  20th January  2017   over one  month  away, there  were, legally speaking,  no injunctive  orders as the orders had  lapsed  on each  of the  14th  day from the respective dates  since they had never been  served and there   was  no consent  of the parties to such extension.

60. Again, the applicants herein managed  to file  a response to the application   dated 8th December  2016   on 19th January  2017  and when they  appeared in  court on  20th January  2017  before  Honourable  D.O. Mbeja through  their advocate Mr  Morara, it was  reported that  infact, some of the interested parties had withdrawal notices of suit filed and  served  on the defendants  but that  defendants  No. 1-5  had not been  served with the  orders issued  on 8th December  2016, which orders  were said  to have crippled the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association operations as they could not operate bank accounts.

61. It  was  also reported  that a Mombasa Court had issued  some injunctive orders  against the  applicants  but discharged  them. At that moment the trial magistrate directed that there be confirmation  as to whether the 5 plaintiffs had withdrawn their claims against the defendants/applicants herein or not  before issuing any other  orders  and the matter  was rescheduled  for  20th January  2017  for mention .

62. The trial court ordered that status quo be maintained.  The court also directed all plaintiffs to be served to attend court.  On 25th January  2017  it  was clear  that not  all plaintiffs  were served  so the court rescheduled  the matter to  3rd February 2017 for further  orders and  stated “ orders  issued  on 20th January  2017  to remain  in force”

63. To the best of this court’s  recollection of the orders  granted by the lower court which were all made  exparte and which  had neither  been  served upon the  applicants  within  the stipulated  time nor heard  interpartes,  since on each occasion  the earlier   applications were to  be heard, the plaintiffs/interested  parties  filed a fresh application and obtained  exparte orders  which lapsed  and  which  were  nonetheless being extended from time to time by the trial magistrate without having regard to the provisions of Order 40 Rule  1,2,3,4 of the Civil  Procedure Rules.

64. It is  upon that  confused  state  of affairs  that this court  does appreciate  why the exparte applicants  herein felt extremely frustrated  and filed an  application dated  27th January  2017  before the lower court seeking to set aside  the  orders of  8th December  2016 which  were  being  extended  nonstop yet  the  injunction orders issued had never been  served upon the applicants or their  advocates  but served  upon the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association bankers, National Bank of Kenya  to stop any transactions thereby  paralyzing  the applicant’s  operations.

65. The lower court record further shows that No sooner had the  interested  parties responded  to the application dated 27th January 2017 by the exparte applicants herein than they immediately filed another  application dated 3rd February 2017 seeking to restrain the  applicants  herein being the National officials  from operating  or opening  any bank account  on behalf  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association; and or  conducting any operations on behalf of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association and  or to  issue orders  maintaining  the status  quo  of  orders issued  on 8th December  2016  and  20th December  2016   pending  hearing  and  determination  of the application  and the suit.

66. On that  day of  3rd February  2017 is the same  day when the  motion  dated  27th January  2017  by the exparte  applicant   was to be  heard but  the proceedings show that  different  questions cropped up including  whether or not   there  was  a case and  in the ensuing, the interested  parties  advocate  conceded that  some plaintiffs  had withdrawn  from the suit  while there  were others  who  had wished to be enjoined  in the suit as  plaintiffs.  Mr Ojienda  clearly  informed the trial court that  he intended  to  file an  application to enjoin other  plaintiffs  and the trial magistrate  granted the plaintiff’s counsel leave to  amend the  pleadings to  enjoin other interested parties as plaintiffs within 14 days with  corresponding leave to the defendants  to amend their pleadings, and  the parties were given  time to file submissions   on whether or  not there  was  suit as  far as  the plaintiffs  who had  filed notices  of withdrawal  of suit  were concerned.

67. The learned  magistrate set the mater  for mention on 6th March  2017 for further orders and ordered that the status quo be maintained  and  despite  Mr Morara  mentioning  to the learned magistrate that the  defendant’s  application dated  27th January  2017  was also  coming up for  hearing  on that same  day of  3rd February  2017, the learned  magistrate ignored  Mr Morara’s concerne  and  wrote: Ct. the status  quo be  maintained.

68. With  utmost  respect  to the conduct of the learned magistrate as shown by the record,  one  can decipher arbitrariness in the manner  in  which he  conducted  proceedings  in the sense  that  despite  the fact that  the date of 3rd February 2017 had  been meant  for hearing  of the notice of motion  dated  27th January  2017 filed  by the defendants, the trial magistrate did not  want to  hear or  see any  evil called the  application  dated 27th January  2017  but  was  quick to  issue orders  for  status quo  of  injunctive  orders which  had lapsed  long time  ago and which had prompted the exparte applicants herein to file the motion dated 27th  January 2017.

69. This prompted the defendants  to file another  application in addition to the one  dated  27th January  2017  which  was  pending.  The application is dated  24th February  2017  under certificate  of urgency  seeking to  restrain  the plaintiffs by way of an injunction from conducting affairs of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association pending hearing  and  determination of the  previous  applications  of and  of the suit.

70. The application dated  24th February  2017  which  was  exparte   was   certified  as urgent  but  the trial magistrate  was quick  to state that “ However, I have noted  that  minutes of the meeting held  on 21st February  2017  have not been  disclosed.  The applicant to serve for interpartes hearing on 6th March 2017 on priority basis and status quo to be maintained.”

71. The question is, was the trial magistrate snooping on the side happenings or dispute between the parties from the sideline?  I say so because  the  proceedings of   24th February 2017   appear overtly biased against the defendants  that one can  quickly  decipher and infer from the record and conduct of the trial court that the  learned magistrate   was acting as an agent for one  of the parties in the dispute  and not the other.  I say so  without any  fear of contradiction  because from the proceedings of that day  and the pleadings before him on that day, at paragraph  6  of the supporting  affidavit  the  defendants  had complained of the plaintiff’s  calling for  a meeting  to discuss the ASSOCIATION’S (KIFWA)  affairs to  the exclusion  of the defendants who were  bound by  the  existing (yet  lapsed) court  orders which  were illegally extended in the name of status quo  pronouncements.

72. And if that were not to be the case, i observe that if the  defendants had indeed disclosed  that they  had been excluded from the meeting, the question  is how  would  they  be  expected  to have received  minutes of the meeting  held only  a day earlier by their adversaries?

73. In my  humble view, the  proceedings/pronouncements on record  by the trial court in terms of repetitive injunctions were so unreasonable and outrageous that no  reasonable  judicial officer  would  give  priority  as he did, to  status quo being  maintained  as  opposed to paying  attention  to the problem  he had  created  by generously  issuing  exparte injunctions  beyond  14 days  in favour  of the plaintiffs  and  not allowing  interpartes  consideration and  determination  of those exparte applications. The trial record is so convoluted and so confusing  such that  one cannot tell which of the orders issued from 14th October 2016  to the last order were  validly  on record  if at all.

74. The record also shows that the court file was brought  up  earlier  than 6th March  2017, on 27th February  before  Orenge  Honourable  SRM who directed   that it be placed  before Ombeja SRM Honourable  on 1st March  2017 and on that date Mr Muriuki  holding  brief  for  Mr Morara  for the  exparte applicants herein sought for directions  on their clients’/defendant’s  motion dated  24th February 2017.  The trial magistrate Honourable Ombeja again gave priority  to the slogan “status quo to be maintained” as parties  file  and exchange  all necessary  papers before  6th March  2017.

75. The trial court  on learning from  Mr Ojienda’s  submissions  from the bar that the “Secretary General  of  the  defendant  had   resigned  through the  media,” and despite  the  defendants’ counsel  intimating that he had instructions to abandon the  contest on whether or not  there  was  a suit respecting  the plaintiffs  who had   filed and  served notices  to withdraw suit, the trial  magistrate’s  attention  was  drawn  to the emerging  rumour  that the officials  of  the  first defendant   were not in office  and so he  wanted to  deal with that  issue of  summoning  the  1st defendant’s  officials  which was  in my view, a diversionary  measure  to allow the plaintiffs to continue enjoying illegal orders of  status quo.

76. On 6th March 2017  the learned  magistrate  did not  make any order as to  status quo but before 10th March  2017  which  was  the  date that the  trial magistrate  had given as a date for further orders  on 6th March  2017, the plaintiffs again filed another notice of motion under certificate of urgency. The application was seeking for  a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs either  by themselves  or jointly  and severally call for special general meeting  to elect officials  because on 15th February  the National Secretary  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association- Phillip Amunga had placed  a paid advertisement  in the Daily  Nation Newspaper   at  page  46   that he had resigned, and that as a result of that resignation,the functioning   and  existence of the Management  Committee of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association had extinguished  and  terminated and   that the  term of current officials   was to end on  31st  March 2016  which would  leave the  Association’s leadership in a vacuum.

77. On 10th March  2017, the trial court issued  orders sought in the motion seeking for a mandatory injunction directing KIFWA to hold and a special general meeting  as prayed  by the plaintiffs in their application of 8th March  2017 and  ordering  for  special general meeting  within 7 days  to be convened  by the existing official of KIFWA to be overseen  by the Registrar of Societies.

78. When it reached  that stage,  the defendant  approached  this court  by way of  Judicial Review  seeking to quash  the  orders which  are impugned  and seeking for  stay of  the  purported Special General Meeting directed  by the trial court  and  despite  the  orders of this  court staying the Special General Meeting, the SGM was  held unabated as it appears  that  the applicants  had sought  for  a stay  too late  in the day  when the event  was already taking  place on  16th March 2017.  Nonetheless, the plaintiffs took their  time before  filing  with the  trial court  the minutes/resolutions  of the ordered Special General Meeting.

79. On 31st  July  2017  the  plaintiffs  filed another   application dated 28th August 2017 before the trial magistrate seeking for  mandatory injunction  to compel the defendants  directing them to unconditionally open the premises at Kenya Ports Authority, ICD  Embakasi Agents  Block  Ground  Floor  and  in the alternative the new  management  of Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association and its  agents  be allowed to  break into the  Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association premises  named above  to allow  the management  run the  Management  of the Association.

80. That application was granted, allowing the OCS Inland Container Depot  Police Station to provide  security  during the break  in and  abatement  of the nuisance  in the Association’s  premises  and that is the last pronouncement  in the Milimani  CMCC  7107/2016  before this matter  was  heard  herein, and  Article 165(7) of the Constitution  invoked  on 26th September  2017 calling for the trial record to establish the propriety of the proceedings  before the trail court, following the  serious  complaints  by the applicants  on the conduct  of the trial court.

81. Albeit  the  proceedings of  28th August   2017  and  22nd  August  2017 claim that the defendants were served  with the application  dated  31st  July  2017  the court record  only shows  affidavits  of service  sworn by  Benjamin  Munguti  on 2nd August  2017, and 15th August 2017 and 23rd August 2017 with no  accompanying  acknowledged  documents  allegedly served.

82. The court has seen it all and  touched every page of  the  proceedings  and  pleadings  in Milimani  Commercial court CMCC 7107/2016 and  can confirm that indeed, the  court record of proceedings as conducted therein is  extremely messy.  There is every evidence that the  court process  was abused by the plaintiffs with the aid of the trial magistrate  who was  expeditiously  granting them exparte  orders of  injunction oblivious  of the conditions for such grant as  stipulated in Order  40  Rules  1,2,3, and  4  of the Civil Procedure Rules.  Those exparte orders  more often  than not as listed, were  given beyond  the  14 days  stipulated,   were never  served upon the  defendants  counsel, and  were always extended  even after they  had automatically lapsed such that the court  was extending  nothing from time to time.

83. In addition, the record is awash with application after application by the plaintiffs/interested parties herein and   other than  the latest application  of 31st  July  2017  which  was determined  exparte  after the defendants  failed to  respond, all  the  other motions  are still  pending  undetermined  by the trial court.

84. That last  order of  31st July  2017  and the one of  10th March  2017  are of  a mandatory  nature  with the orders  of  10th March  2017 directing the holding of a special  Annual General Meeting  within 7 days  and  the  one of  31st  July  2017  granting  a mandatory  injunction  to break into  the  Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association offices  and manage  affairs  of the Association  by the plaintiffs who were elected pursuant  to the  Special General Meeting  directed  by the trial court.

85. There is no plaint on record containing such substantive prayers  for a mandatory injunction directing the holding of a Special General Meeting of the Association.

86. The exparte applicant has maintained that those  impugned   orders were made  ultra vires  and  without jurisdiction  and  I agree entirely.

87. First is that the orders  for holding/convening  of elections   were misplaced  for  reasons that  the constitution  of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association is clear  on the procedure  for convening  of Special General Meeting  and as  there  was no substantive  suit for  convening of  a Special General Meeting, the trial court  acted outside and in excess of its jurisdiction in ordering for a Special General Meeting   for  purposes of  holding of elections.  As at the time of making  that  order, there  were other elected  officials of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association, other than  the National Secretary  who had  allegedly resigned  through  a paid up  advertisement. The orders violated Clause 23 (c) of the Association’s Constitution which stipulates that  any casual vacancies of the National Executive Committee or the Branch Managing Committee caused by death or resignation shall be filled by the respective committees until the next Annual Delegates Meeting or the Annual General Meeting.

88. Clause 23(d) also provides for situations where all or majority of the Committee members resign.. under Clause 17, only the Managing Committee could call for and AGM OR Special General meeting. Clause 19(a) of the Association’s constitution also provides for Notice of 21 days to issue to members  before  the scheduled meeting.

89. In this case there was no material placed before the trial court that the General meeting had refused to call the Special General meeting or any meeting for that matter and neither were the exparte applicants given any opportunity to be heard on the a mandatory injunction application before final orders by the court directing the holding of a special General meeting was ordered by the court.

90. In my humble view, it  was therefore not  for the court  to supervise  the  affairs of a private enterprise  by compelling  it to hold elections vide a Special  General Meeting without alluding to the Associations’ Constitution which bound all its members.

91. In my humble view, the mandatory order for a Special General Meeting, usurped the role of the constructive organs  of the Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association. Accordingly, I find that the honourable magistrate acted  ultra vires and arbitrary and therefore the order for mandatory injunction which was not part of the substantive claim before him is  amenable  to be brought before  this court for purposes of quashing  and  I do hereby  call for  and  bring into this court proceedings  leading to and the  order of  31st July  2017 and  proceed to quash those proceedings and the order of the trial court issued on 31st July, 2017. In my humble view, no   reasonable judicial officer could have conducted proceedings the way CMCC 7107/16 was conducted.

92. It is now settled law that a court of law  ought  not to grant  a mandatory  injunction  at the interlocutory stage as it is likely, other thing, being equal, to be more  drastic  in its   effect  than a prohibitory  injunction  and the case has to be  unusually  strong  and  clear  before a mandatory   injunction  can be granted  even if it is sought to enforce a contractual obligations ( see  Shepherd  Homes  Ltd v  Shadahu [1971] 1 ch.34   Megarry J, and  Kenya  Airports Authority  vs Paul Njogu  Mungai & 2  Others [1977] e KLR; Nation Media  Group & 2 Others  vs  John Haroun  Mwau [2014] e KLR (CA).

93. It is  not for  this court  to determine   the merits  or  demerits  of the orders granted by the trial court  but to examine  the trial  record and  determine the  propriety  of the  proceedings therein.

94. My exploration of the trial record shows that this is a case where  not even  summons to enter appearance  were issued   or served upon   the  defendants.  There is therefore no  defence on record.  The case before the trial court was  perpetually being  determined  by way of  exparte  interlocutory  injunctive orders with no interpartes hearing.  There was total abuse of the orders of injunctions. The plaintiffs/interested parties had all  along  obtained  exparte orders from  the  court and  failed to serve  them upon the  exparte  applicant  which orders  lapsed  but  were  extended exparte after the lapse and the trial court  encouraged  the perpetuation  of such transgressions.

95. Order 5 Rule  1 (6)  of the Civil Procedure Rule is clear  that every summons  except  where the court  is to effect service, shall be  collected  for service within thirty days of  issue or  notification, whichever  is later, failing  which the  suit shall  abate.

96. In this case, there are draft copies of summons to enter appearance which  are  neither  signed nor  issued nor taken  out  and  with no date.

97. In Frenze Investments Ltd vs Kenya Way Ltd HCC 524/1999  the court stated:

“A summons to enter appearance is not a piece of paper of little consequence.  It is necessary and  vital document governing  the time  table  of  pleadings and the rules  governing the issuance  and  service   thereof   must be  complied with for the pleadings to acquire  legitimacy.  Such seriousness  was  underscored  by the  Court of Appeal  in CA  85/96  Uday Kumar Chandullal Rajan & RS T/A Lit Petrol Station  v Charles Thaithi (unreported) where  a defective  summons   was  issued  and  served beyond  the validity  of one year  but  objection  was raised  to its  validity although the defendant  had already  accepted it  and  entered  an unconditional appearance.

98. Order 5 Rule1of the Civil Procedure Rules  mandates  that a plaint must be accompanied by summons to enter appearance and where the  plaintiff  has not  taken out  summons  the court cannot  invoke  its inherent  jurisdiction to save   the suit.

99. The above provisions are mandatory in nature and hence service of the plaint alone without summons to enter appearance renders the plaint a nullity. That notwithstanding the law is clear that the summons once issued are only for one year after which they lapse and the plaintiff can nonetheless apply for extension.

100. Order  5  of the Civil Procedure Rules also contemplates  that  summons to enter appearance  will be issued  and  served at the  same time  as the plaint within 30 days of the date of filing suit  and the duty according  to Rule 3(5) is placed on the plaintiff or  his advocate to prepare summons to enter appearance for signature  and  sealing by  the court to give it  validity.

101. The provisions stipulate:

(1) When a suit has been filed a summons shall issue to the defendant ordering him to appear within the time specified therein.

(2) Every summons shall be signed by the judge or an officer appointed by the judge and shall be sealed with the seal of the court without delay, and in any event not more than thirty days from the date of filing suit.

(3) Every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint.

(4) The time for appearance shall be fixed with reference to the place of residence of the defendant so as to allow him sufficient time to appear:

Provided that the time for appearance shall not be less than ten days.

(5) Every summons shall be prepared by the plaintiff or his advocate and filed with the plaint to be signed in accordance with Subrule (2) of this rule.

(6) Every summons, except where the court is to effect service, shall be collected for service within thirty days of issue or notification, whichever is later, failing which the suit shall abate.

102. Under Order 5  Rule  1(7),  the  life span  of the summons to enter appearance  is  24 months  upon which if no  application is made to extend them the court  would without  notice dismiss the  suit.

103. In this case, 24 months are not yet over but from the date of filing of suit, no summons to enter appearance were ever issued  now almost 1 year  to the  date when  the  suit  was  first  initiated, which is beyond the 3o days contemplated for such issuance.

104. From the subordinate court record, the interested  parties have continued   to benefit  from illegal  injunctive orders  to the detriment and prejudice  of the exparte applicant which in my view, is a clear  contravention of the exparte  injunctive orders  granted to the plaintiff/interested party from time to time on the  basis of perpetual applications such that it would be absolutely  impossible for the exparte applicants herein to respond to the suit  substantively  and have it  determined  on its merits.  This is so because there are so many appending applications and exparte orders on record and one would not even know which application to respond to first and or which orders to apply to have them set aside or to appeal against.

105. In my view, the procedural flaws apparent on the face of the record in CMCC 1707 of 2016  are  amenable  to judicial review  by this court  as it is Wednesbury  unreasonable  and  irrational for a court  of law  to cause  one party  to the proceedings  suffer the  tyranny of injunction  after injunction  without  caring  for the  prejudice that such injunctions  would cause  to the adverse  party.

106. Rules of engagement are enacted to achieve justice for both parties.  There is no reason why no summons to enter appearance  were taken  out.  This  court is  under a judicial duty to ensure the subordinate  court  adheres  to the  rules of  procedure.

107. In my humble  view, there  appears to be no end to the exparte  injunctive  orders both prohibitive and mandatory being  bowled out by the lower court to the detriment  of one  party  who has been incapacitated by those orders and that party is the exparte applicant(s) herein. I therefore find that the exparte applicant was justified in bringing these proceedings and no other remedy could cure the malaise.

108. Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction over the  subordinate  court  conferred on  this court  by Article 165(6) and (7) of  the Constitution, and  having called  for the record  of the proceedings  before CMCC 1707/2016  for purposes  of giving directions considered  appropriate  to ensure  fair  administration of justice, I am  persuaded that the exparte applicant’s  notice of motion dated is merited. In addition,  I hereby direct  that in the interest of justice, owing to the jumbled up proceedings in  Milimani Commercial Court CMCC 7107 /2016 no justice can be done to the parties if those proceedings remain in place for continuation. Accordingly, as parties are not barred by statute to institute fresh proceedings if they so wish,  I order and direct that there shall be no more  proceedings  to be continued  in the CMCC 7107/2016 where  summons to enter appearance have been issued to date.

109. Final orders:

a) An order  of certiorari  to remove  into the High Court   and  quash  the orders of the  1st respondent made on  14th October  2016, 8th  December  2016, 20th December  2016 and 10th March 2017 and  all consequential  orders and  actions  thereof  and proceedings in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court,  Milimani  Law Courts  Civil case  No. 7107  of  2016: Keynote  Logistics  Limited & 41 Others vs  Auni Bhaiji &  Others are hereby quashed and the file thereof marked as closed.

b) Any pending  dispute  between the  same parties  hereto  may  be initiated by fresh proceedings in the same court to be heard and determined on its merits by any other  magistrate  other than  the  Honourable  D.O Ombeja  Senior Resident  Magistrate.

c) I order that each party do  bear their  own costs of  these proceedings and of the closed  file Milimani Commercial Court CMCC 7107/2016  in view   of the fact that  the  procedural  flows  identified  in the matter  were  largely  encouraged  by the trial court.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 9th day of October, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Barasa h/b for Mr Nyamodi for the exparte applicants

Mr Wangila advocate h/b for MR Seth Ojienda for the 2nd Respondent and the interested party

N /A for 1st respondent

Court Assistant: George