Hannah Mwihaki Muturi, Zacharia K. Kahari Muthambure, George Kamau Macharia, Francis John Wanyange Mwangi, David Maina Gachanja, Mary Wanjiku Gichanga, Lydiah Wangari Mwangi & Lari Nyakinyua (Solai Farm) Limited v Registrar of Companies & Colleta Maweu( Ass. Registrar of Companies) [2017] KEHC 2776 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  94 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF COMPANIES ACT (CHAPTER 486 LAWS OF KENYA)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION  FOR  LEAVE  BY LARI  NYAKINYUA (SOLAI  FARM) LIMITED  JUDICIAL  REVIEW  ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND  PROHIBITION.

HANNAH MWIHAKI MUTURI…………..…………………….1ST APPLICANT

ZACHARIA K. KAHARI MUTHAMBURE…………….……..2ND  APPLICANT

GEORGE KAMAU  MACHARIA…………………………….....3RD APPLICANT

FRANCIS  JOHN WANYANGE MWANGI………………….....4TH APPLICANT

DAVID MAINA  GACHANJA……………………………….….5TH APPLICANT

MARY  WANJIKU GICHANGA………………………………..6TH APPLICANT

LYDIAH  WANGARI MWANGI……………………..…………7TH APPLICANT

LARI NYAKINYUA (SOLAI FARM) LIMITED…..………..…...8TH APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE REGISTRAR  OF COMPANIES ……………………… …...RESPONDENT

COLLETA MAWEU( ASS.  REGISTRAR

OF COMPANIES ……………………………………….....INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

1. This ruling was to be delivered much earlier in April 2017 but the court was engaged in extremely urgent cases related to pre-election disputes coupled with my proceeding on leave in June and the recess that followed hence the delay in the delivery of the judgment.

2. The ruling determines  three applications   dated  18th May  2016;  17th July  2014 and  24th June  2014  which  were ordered to be heard together  vide court  order of  19th December  2016.  The three applications were canvassed orally together on 27th February 2017.

3. The applications  dated 18th May  2016  and  17th July  2014    were filed by the applicants represented by Mr Achoki  advocate   whereas  the application  dated  24th June  2014  was  filed by the  respondent  represented   by  Mr Njuguna  advocate.

4. The parties  also filed  written submissions  which they wholly  adopted  in their  oral submissions.

5. In the  notice of motion  dated  24th  June  2014  and  filed in court on 25th  June  2014,  the applicants  seek from the court   orders:

a. that the  persons  elected  as directors  of the 8th applicant,  Lari  Nyakinyua ( Solai Farm ) Ltd   on 16th May 2014  namely: Fredrick  Kahia  Thugi;  Joseph  Kamau Ngugi; Peter  Muchume Gachuki; Rose Njeri Munoru; Teresia Mukami  Thairu; Fredrick Njuguna Gichuki and George Macharia  Kariuki by  themselves, their agents  or persons  claiming  under them  or through them be restrained from taking over the office running and or management  of the  affairs of the 8th applicant  company until  this application is heard  and  determined; b. That the  elections held  on  16th May  2014  and all subsequent  actions  purporting  to be pursuant  to the order issued  on  13th March  2014 be declared  null and  void;

b. That  the  interim Board of Directors  elected on  5th December  2013 be allowed to continue in office pending  proper  elections;

c. That the orders made  herein  on  13th March  2014   be  reviewed to the extent that  they appear   to give  the  Registrar of Companies  a carta blanche  to determine who  are eligible  to participate in the Annual General  Meeting of   the  8th  applicant  regardless of their membership statue  therein;

d. That the court  do give proper directions  regarding  the conduct of the Annual General Meeting of 8th applicant having regard to its  membership thereof  and  the  fact that  it is  and  remains  a private company limited by shares as opposed  to a public company.

6. The application  was predicated  on  grounds that:

a. The respondent  in purported  pursuance  of orders of  13th March  2014   has allowed  persons who are not  members of the  8th applicant  to participate  in its Annual General Meeting and election  of Directors’

b. That the list  of the 774 members  who participated  at the Annual General Meeting are not  members of the   8th applicant  company and  consequently  any persons  elected  by them  were ineligible for election and as such  strangers  to the  8th applicant.

c. The elections  held on 16th May  2014  are  invalid   and  they will legitimize the illegal alienation, wasting and  squandering  of the assets  of the  8th applicant.

7. The motion  was supported by the affidavit  sworn on  24th June  2014  by Francis John Wanyange Mwangi deposing  that  the  8th  applicant  is s a  private company  and that  its initial  directors all died. That on  5th December  2013  the company  appointed  the  2nd -7th applicants as an  interim  Board of Directors and  Form  203A  was  completed  and  filed with  the  respondent’s  Registrar’s office.  That  pursuant to the order of 13th March  2014  the  respondent   Registrar of Companies  purported to  conduct  elections  for the  8th applicant   on 16th May, 2014  in an Annual General Meeting. That the list of persons  who participated  in the elections is  774   whereas  there  was  only a team of  7th  members of the Board of Directors  and  4 shareholders  eligible  to participate. That  the persons  elected  were also  not eligible  to vote or  to be voted  as neither  of them is  a member. That  therefore  the Annual General Meeting of   16th May  2014   is null and  void  and  so is any business  conducted  on that day.

8. That the purported directors has moved in to take over  possession of the company assets and  management of its  affairs to the detriment of its proper members hence this  application; and that  unless  the court intervenes the  applicants  would suffer  irreparable  loss and  damage.

9. On 22nd  July 2014, the 3rd  respondent  filed an application  dated  17th July 2016   seeking to:

a. restrain  the applicants  from purporting  to act as  officials  of  Lari Nyakinyua  ( Solai  Farm) Ltd;

b. that the applicants   be   orders to hand over  documents  in their possess  to  newly  elected  officials;

10. That  application  was  ordered to  be heard  jointly   with the one  dated  24th  June   2014   above and  by consent   of parties  who were allowed   to file affidavits and supplement any affidavits and written submissions  exchanged.

11. However, before the  above two  applications  were heard and or determined, the application  dated  18th May 2015  filed on the  same  day  was  filed by the  main applicants herein seeking  to compel  the respondents  to  surrender   title deed  Nos  IR 109 20/15157/1 and 1095/1  in the  name of the  2nd applicant  in their possession, to the  2nd  applicant  or its directors or  that in the  alternative  the  said title  documents  be presumed  lost  and the Lands Registrar be ordered to issue  fresh  title  documents to the 2nd applicant.

12. In support of the application dated 17th July  2014  is an affidavit  sworn by Fredrick  Kahia  Thugi deposing that  after the  parties freely  consented to the orders that the elections  be held  and  an application  to stay  elections  having been  withdrawn, which  elections  were held  on  16th May  2014, the new  officer bearers  on several occasions  had requested   the  former  office  bearers  to  hand over  essential  company documents  in their possession  to enable the new office  bearers  run  the affairs of the applicant  company  which  request  had been  refused, rejected  and  or  ignored. That  the documents  include  the  company  seal, certificate  of registration, title deeds  of  land,  register  of members  and  other documents  in their possession. That the company  8th applicant  had a membership of over  3,000. That  the applicants  had been  illegally  in office  and that no transactions  could take  place   without the  documents  in issue.

13. In a rejoinder further affidavit sworn by  Francis John  Wanyange  Mwangi on  10th September  2014   it was  deposed  that the private company  could not  have more  than  50 members let alone  a purported  3000 members  hence the  illegality of those who participated in elections with the complicity  of  officers  from the Registrar of Companies  hence the elections of  16th May  2014  should be  nullified.

14.  On the application  dated  17th July  2014   the  respondents  filed a preliminary objection on  12th September  2014  contending  that; the  8th respondent  had not  and  could not  carry  out business including  changing  of advocates  as the purported Board   of Directors  is challenged  by the application  dated 24th June  2014  which had not  been  determined; The  purported  Board of Directors  for the  8th applicant  have not  and cannot  make any  resolution  and if they  did, the same  would be  of no legal  effect; That the application  is an  abuse of court process as it  was filed  after service  of the earlier  application  seeking  nullification of elections  conducted  on 16th May 2014; that the applicants have no locus  standi  in the application  dated  17th June 2014   hence the application is invalid  from its  inception.

15. On  21st January  2016   a further affidavit   was filed  sworn by Francis  Wanyange   Mwangi  emphasizing  that they  were appointed  as  interim  Board of  Directors  by Hannah Mwihaki  Muturi  when she   was   alive  and  Lari  Nyakinyua  Company (K) Ltd  who is the  majority  shareholder  of  the  8th applicant  as shown by returns  filed on  31st December  2003  hence they   were appointed in accordance with the  Memorandum and Articles  of  Association of the  applicant, as a caretaker  Board of Directors.

16. On  18th May  2016  the  applicants  filed another  application dated the  same  day seeking  for the same  orders  as those sought  in the application  dated  17th July  2014 for release  of  title deed  documents in the possession of the  respondents to  allow the handing over to the over 6,000 members of their titles  by way  of transfer.

17. In the replying affidavit sworn by Macharia Kahari  Muthambure on  21st June  2015, it is  deposed that  the  1st  applicant’s  directorship  in the  2nd applicant  is what  was challenged in the  application  dated   24th June  2016   which  was   still pending  and that  if the applicants  were to succeed in having  the  respondents  vacate  office then  the latter  would surrender  the  documents  as may be in their  possession  such as  title documents hence the application  dated  18th May  2016  is a duplication of the  previous one and is merely intended  to cloud  the issues.

18. That the 2nd applicant is one of the  applicants  in the application aforesaid hence  there is no  way it can be  represented  by  the firm  of  Achoki & Company  Advocates; That there  was no resolution  made by the  2nd  applicant to be  represented  by Achoki & Company  Advocates  or to  present the  aforesaid  applications.  That this dispute  will only  be  resolved  when the  Honourable  court deals  with the fact that Lari  Nyakinyua (Solai Farm) Ltd  and  Lari Nyakinyua (K) Ltd  are distinct legal  entities  and sort  out  the  issues of  the  directorship  of both companies  hence the application  dated  18th May 2016  should  be  dismissed.

19. Simultaneous  with the filing of replying  affidavit to the application  dated  18th May 2016  the respondents also filed  notice of  preliminary objection dated  21st  June  2016 contending  that the application  as  presented is fatally  defective; that the  application as presented  is subjudice; that  the 2nd applicant is  not represented  by  Achoki & Company Advocates and the issue of its representation is yet to be  determined.  That  the  2nd applicant   has not authorized  the making of this application;  The  two  previous  applications  of  24th June  2014 and  17th July  2014   which  have a bearing  on who  among the  parties  herein  are the proper directors of the 2nd applicant are yet  to be determined  despite  the  parties having  filed their  respective   submissions  in  2015;  that to  proceed  with this latest  application  is an abuse  of the court process  and  a strategy  intended  to cloud  the issues  and  defeat  the course of  justice  and  that the  latest  application  is mischievous  and  ought  not to be  entertained  in light  of the pending  applications  as alluded to  herein above.

20. On 24th February  2017  the applicants  in the applications  dated  17th July  2014   and  18th May 2016  filed  another supporting  affidavit sworn by Peter Gachie the Vice Chairman and  director  of the  2nd applicant.  He deposes  that elections  of the  2nd applicant company were conducted  by the consent  of all  parties  recorded  by the court   and  adopted  as an order of the court on  13th March  2014.

21. That pursuant  to the said  orders  the  2nd  applicant  company  conducted  elections  and the  1st  applicant   and  other directors   were elected  as  directors  and  were registered  by the Registrar  of Companies  as per the annexed  letter of  19th May 2014 .

22. That on 24th April  2003  the  2nd applicant  company entered  into an agreement with Ruyobei  Farm Ltd  whereby  the  2nd  applicant exchanged Solai Farm with  Oljorai  Farm  which  was owned by Ruyobei  Farm, which  agreement was confirmed  by the District  Commissioner, Gilgil  District  vide his  letter of  6th August  2012.  That albeit the agreement  was  executed  and  Ruyobei  Farm Ltd  took  possession of the  Solai Farm,  the   2nd  applicant  has never  taken possession of Oljorai  Farm due to  long standing   leadership wrangles.

23. That the directors of Ruyobei  Farm and the  2nd applicant  have  agreed  to transfer  the  parcels for the  issuance  of titles   but the current  directors  are unable  to transfer  the  three  parcels  exchanged  with Ruyobei Farm  Ltd  because  the  respondents   have refused  to surrender  title deeds No.  LR  10920/1,5157/1  and 1095/1  which are  still in their possession hence the court should  order  the  surrender  thereof  to facilitate  transfers  into  the name of the  2nd  applicant; and that in the alternative, the  court do  direct the Registrar  of Lands  to issue  the  title deed  numbers  above  to the  2nd  applicant   for  purposes  of transfer  the  same  in the respective names  of  two  companies.

24. As earlier indicated, both parties advocates filed their  respective  submissions  reiterating   the  averments  and  or depositions  in  their respective  applications/affidavits  and which  submissions  were highlighted  on 27th  February  2017.

25. The applicants   in the application  dated  24th  June  2014  filed  and or  relied on the submissions  filed on  14th December  2016  adding that  for  review of a consent order, the case  of Kimita & Another  V Wakibiru  [1986] KLR  578  sets out  grounds for  review  of consent orders.  They maintained that the application was  properly brought within the rules for review because  enforcement  of the order  caused  them an injustice  hence the court  should  review  the orders it  made on  13th May  2014.

26. According  to the said  applicants, the  court directed  the  8th applicant  company  to hold elections but that   in carrying  out the  said  elections, the respondents   acted  unlawfully  in that the 8th  applicant  being  a private company limited  by shares  could not  have had  774   shareholders  as its membership does not exceed  50.  That  in this case, over 700  people   participated  in the elections  and that  those people  were strangers  hence the  applicants refused  to participate in those elections.

27. That since  the  applicants had initially  been appointed an interim  Board  of Directors  in a meeting of  5th December  2013  the idea of non filing  of returns  on their part is a mere  statement  from the bar.

28. That as the elections  of  16th May  2014  were illegal and that therefore the letter  from the Registrar of Companies confirming  registered officials  is invalid  since strangers cannot direct  affairs of a private company.

29. That the advocates filed a notice of   change of  advocates  on behalf  of the  8th applicant  in place of  the former advocate  Mwangi and Mwangi Associates  but  that Achoki  & Company Advocates  had no authority  to file applications  on behalf of the 2nd applicant  hence the latter’s  application should  be dismissed.

30. In response, Mr Achoki relied on the filed submissions  contending that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain  the application dated  26th June  2014 since the  order which   was being  sought  to be  reviewed  was  out of  a  consent order  entered  by all parties  to the  dispute  and  the elections  complained  of arose from the consent order.

31. That the Articles and Memorandum of  Association does not show the applicants  as members  of the  company and that there  are no  returns  filed with the  Registrar.

32. That there was no  fraud  or mistake  hence the  consent  cannot  be challenged  and that the  application  for review is intended  to delay the  resolution  of the dispute  and  should be  dismissed.

33. It was  submitted that if  elections  were not  properly  conducted  the remedy is not in  this court  which granted  Judicial Review  orders  but is  found in filing  a  civil suit  in the Commercial Division  since there is  no allegations  of an error  on the face  of  the record.

34. Further, that even if  the elections  were  conducted  contrary  to the  law, the remedy is not  here.  That   in Kimita  & Another  V Wakibiru(supra)  the dispute   was over  survey and acreage  of land hence  there is  no connection  with this matter.

35. It  was  submitted that elections   were held  in accordance  with the orders  of the court and that the  applicants stayed  away hence  they cannot  blame  the respondents.

36. That registered officials of the company should  have possession  of the company and  hence it is  illegal  and  irregular  for the former  officials  to hold onto the  documents  of the company  hence the prayer  for surrender  of the same to the  new officials.  That  Achoki  & Company were appointed by new officials  and  hence the former officials have no power to appoint  an advocate  as they  were not in office.  Counsel  urged the court to  dismiss the applicant’s application and  allow the  motions of  18th May  2016  and  17th July  2014  with costs  because the applicants   had come to court severally.

DETERMINATION

37. I have considered all the foregoing rival  positions  of the parties to the three applications  dated 24th June  2014;  17th July  2014  and  18th May  2016  and  the main  issue for  determination  is whether  the applications  as presented  have any substance  and if  so what orders  should  this court  make.

38. Before delving  into the  merits  and  demerits of the  respective  applications, it is important  to provide  some brief   history of this  seemingly unending  convoluted dispute.

39. The original  issues  were presented to this court  on 11th March  2014  by way of  chamber summons  dated  11th March  2014 seeking for leave to institute Judicial Review orders  of certiorari to bring and quash  the  decisions  of the Registrar of Companies  made on 3rd February 2014 calling for  Annual General  Meeting  of the  8th  applicant  Lari Nyakinyua  ( Solai Farm )Ltd  and  an order of prohibition prohibiting the said  Registrar of Companies from continuing, hearing and conducting Annual General Meeting  of the  8th applicant  Lari Nyakinyua  (Solai  Farm) Ltd  pursuant  to the notice  issued by  it.

40. The learned  Judge( Korir) J certified  the  matter as  urgent  and directed  the applicants  to serve  the respondents  for interpartes  consideration.

41. The  applicants  complied  and the  respondents  and  interested  parties  filed  replying  affidavits  challenging  the application for leave.

42. However, on 13th March  2014  the parties  unanimously entered into a consent  which  was  adopted  as the order  of the court  to the effect  that:

1. The 8th  applicants Annual General  Meeting   scheduled for  14th March  2014  be and  is hereby  stood over   to the  16th May  2014.

2. That the  8th applicant’s  Annual General  Meeting  shall  be held  at the Traditional Venue of  the company at Kimende.

3. That the Registrar of Companies  to convene   and  conduct the Annual General Meeting of the 8th applicant’s  company.

4. That costs of conducting the meeting to be met by the  8th applicant.

5. That there shall be no orders as to costs.

43. The elections were held on  16th May  2014  as scheduled  by the consent   of  the parties.

44. It should be noted that no substantive  notice of motion  was  ever  filed in this  matter for the  purposes of Judicial Review  proceedings.

45. In other  words, the consent   order as  recorded  by the  parties allowing  for  elections  which  were initially being  sought  to be stopped, was meant to  resolve  the dispute  and this  not being a civil suit, it  was  hoped that after elections, parties  would be satisfied with the outcome; or whoever was  dissatisfied   thereof  would take  an appropriate  route  to remedy  the  situation.

46. In the instant  case, it  clearly  appears  that it is   the  elections of    16th March 2014 which have  given  rise to  this never  ending  dispute  as there   have been, subsequent  to the consent order  of  13th March 2014, applications counter application by the varying  parties.

47. The record  bears the minutes of  16th March  2014  at  10. 00a.m.  for the  8th applicant Lari Nyakinyua ( Solai Farm) Annual General Meeting  presided  over by  the  representatives of the Registrar  of Companies   Mr  Cyrus  Ngatia, Colleta  Maweu, Joseph  Mwangi and  Felis  Mutethia.  Agenda No 5  of the said minutes  is election of directors.

48. After elections, the minutes show that the  following persons    were elected  as directors:

1. Fredrick Kahia Thugi   - Chairman

2. Peter  Muchume  Gachie-  Vice  Chairman

3. Joseph  Kamau  - Secretary

4. Veronica  Wanjiru  Chege – Treasurer

5. Rose Njeri  Munoru – Trustee.

49. The minutes show that all the 774 members voted for the  said directors.

50. On  19th May 2014  the Registrar  of Companies  received  the Annual Returns and form 203A containing the names of directors  of the 8th applicant  company and  issued  the  CR  12C 18934  dated the  same  day  to the directors  of the  8th applicant  company.

51. On 16th June  2014   vide a notice  of motion dated  the same  day, the Chairman  of the company ( Fredrick Kahia  Thugi and  the 8th applicant company filed an application against Nyambura  Muturi and  Ngige Muturi  seeking  to stop  them from removing the body of Hannah Mwihaki Muturi( their mother) from Uplands Funeral Home for burial until the company  documents which were said to be in her custody are released to the company.  That application  was withdrawn.

52. On  25th June  2014  an application  was filed by  Francis John  Wanyange  Mwagi the  4th applicant  seeking to restrain the  persons  purportedly elected  as directors  of the 8th applicant  on  16th May 2014  from taking  over the running  or managing the affairs of the 8th  applicant  office;  nullification of those elections and seeking that the interim Board of Directors  elected  on 5th December 2013  be allowed to continue  in office pending   proper election.  It is the  same   application dated  24th June  2014  which isa also subject  of this ruling  that also sought that the  consent    orders of  13th March  2014  be reviewed  because they gave the  Registrar  of Companies  a carta blanche  right  to determine  who  was   an eligible  member to participate  in the Annual General Meeting  of the applicant, regardless of their membership  status.

53. According to the  applicant(s) in that  application of  24th June  2014  the  Registrar  of Companies  allowed  strangers  who were non members  of the  8th applicant  private company to  participate  in elections  pursuant to  the orders of   13th March  2014 .

54. Soon  after the  application dated  24th June  2014   was filed and  served upon the rest of the parties, on 22nd  July  2014, the firm of Achoki & Company Advocates  on behalf of the  1st applicant  Fredrick  Kahia  Thugi filed an  application dated  17th July  2014 which is  also subject of this ruling seeking to restrain the respondents Macharia Kahari Muthambure, George K. Kamau  Macharia; Francis John Wanyange Mwangi, David  Maina  Gachanja, Lydia  Wangari Mwangi  and  Mary  Wanjiru Gachanja from  purporting  to act as officials  of Lari Nyakinyua  ( Solai Farm)  Ltd and that  the said  respondents  be directed to hand over  to the newly  elected  officials  of  Lari Nyakinyua( Solai Farm) Ltd over all documents in their possession  to newly  elected  officials.

55. Comprising   the  two motions, it is clear  that the 1st application  was seeking  to nullify  the elections  held on  16th May 2014   whereas  the  2nd application was  seeking to  assert  authority  following  elections of  16th May  2014  because  the elected  officials   were unable  to take charge  without a  handing  over to them of  office  and  documents

56. However, those who  were  opposed  to the outcome of elections  wanted to  have the consent  order  that allowed  elections  to be set aside  and to restrain  the newly elected  officials from taking  office.

57. By the time the  challenge  to the  elections  was being  made  on 19th May 2014 the Registrar of Companies had already  received  the Returns  and  made the  changes to the Register  as appropriate.

58. The applicants in the first application have not claimed that  there  was an  error apparent  on record  or mistake  or fraud  or misrepresentation  in  the consent order of  13th May  2014.  They  claim that  the consent  order  which paved  way for the  elections of   16th May  2014  caused them hardship  because it  gave to the  Registrar  of Companies  a carta blanche right to  decide who was eligible  to vote  and  allowed non share holders  of the  8th applicant  company, which  is a private  and not a  public company, to  participate  at  the Annual  General Meeting  and vote  for the directors  which  was illegal  hence he directors  who were elected were illegally  in office  and therefore they should  not be  allowed to run the  affairs  of the  8th applicant  company.

59. With  utmost  respect  to the applicant  in the application dated  25th June  2014, this court  has no power  to review  a consent   order  on account  that its  implementation was  riddled  with illegalities or irregularities.  There are no Judicial Review orders  on record.  The  consent order  was  issued on the basis of the chamber summons for leave to institute Judicial Review  proceedings  for certiorari and  prohibition.  The decision  which  was to be prohibited  and or  quashed   was by  consent  allowed to take  effect which  is, the holding  of elections  on 16th May 2014  as rescheduled  by consent  of the  parties.

60. That being the case, the court was left with no other  proceedings or cause of action, if the  parties  were dissatisfied  with the elections  in the manner in which they were  conducted  or supervised, it  was  upon the dissatisfied  party to  challenge  the outcome or process either vide Judicial  Review  proceedings  or by way of a civil suit.

61. None of the parties did so  instead, the  applicants  returned to this court  to review  consent orders  which allowed the elections  to be held.  Elections  having  taken place, the consent  order  was  effectively  spent   and  or fully  enforced  and therefore  there  was  left  nothing capable of being  challenged  in terms of  that consent.  It is therefore a  misconception on the part of  the  applicant  in  the  motion dated   25th June  2014  to try to recall the consent order  which had  fully been implemented.

62. On that ground   alone, I  find the application dated  25th June   2014  devoid  of any merit   and  substance.  I proceed to dismiss it.

63. On the subsequent   motions  dated  17th July  2014   and   18th May 2016, which seek to restrain the rival parties from purporting  to act as  officials of the 8th applicant  company  and  to order the  said  rival parties  to hand over  the  documents  in their possession to the  newly  elected  officials ( pursuant  to  elections held on  16th May  2014),there are  evidential  matters of-  which documents  and who  in particular is holding  those documents  of the company, which are required to be handed over to the  applicants  in the subsequent  applications.

64. This court exercises Judicial Review jurisdiction and not civil jurisdiction.  It is not for this court to superintend over the affairs of a private company where warrying factions are claiming  the right to possess documents or to occupy or manage  the  affairs   of the private company. That falls within the realm of a court exercising commercial or civil jurisdiction.

65. For those reasons, I find that  the jurisdiction  of this court  was wrongly  invoked  in all  the three  applications dated  24th  June  2014, 17th July  2014  and  18th May  2016.

66. Once  the parties  agreed to  have elections  which  were  being challenged before this  court, this court  became  functus  officio  upon implementation of the consent  order of  13th May  2014  which  allowed the Registrar  of Companies  to preside  over  the elections.

67. As there  were no  Judicial Review  orders or  proceedings  upon which  the parties  could seek enforcement  of  refusal  to  hand over affairs of the private company to the newly elected  officials, the aggrieved  parties  could only challenge the actions  of their rivals in a different  judicial  forum  and not in these  proceedings.

68. It is therefore  unfortunate  that this  file  has remained  open since 2014  with parties  taking  the court round  the  circles  and failing to appreciate the scope of the  jurisdiction  of the Judicial Review court  and  seeking to  convert  the  proceedings  which lapsed  with the consent  order of  13th May  2014  into civil or  commercial  dispute   for  re adjudication.

69. That is not a practice which is permissible.  The myriad  of applications  in his file  have  only wasted  precious judicial time  and  resources  and  it is for  that reason  that  I find  all the three application not warranted or merited.  They are all dismissed with each party bearing their own costs for misunderstanding the legal process.

70. As there is nothing left on record for adjudication, this file   is forthwith ordered closed, for archiving purposes.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 16th day of October, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE