Republic v Registrar of Companies Ex Parte Ahmed Chege Gikera [2016] KEHC 4183 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.  512    OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS IN THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT (CAP 26) LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATER OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE   TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER   OF CAP 486 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

AND

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRATION OF DIRECTORS   OF GITHUNGURI CONSTITUENCY RANCHING   COMPANY

AND

IN THE MATTER OF  ARTICLES 22(1), (2),(a),(b),(c ), 23(1), 27(1), (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (2010)

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC……………………………………………...………...APPLICANT

VERSUS

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

EX-PARTE APPLICANT AHMED CHEGE GIKERA

RULING

1. The application dated 5th July 2016   was certified   as urgent by Honourable Odunga J and placed before me today for consideration inter-partes.  All the parties to the dispute were present before me this morning after being served with the application by Professor Wangai counsel for the applicant.

2. The Notice of  Motion seeks for  “orders  staying execution of the ‘decision’ contained  in a purported CR 1245/69 concerning  the directors of Githunguri  Constituency Ranching Company, the 2nd respondent  herein issued  by the  1st respondent  Registrar of  Companies  and dated  20th June 2016 pending the  hearing of the  application interpartes; and  eventually, the hearing and  determination  of this  suit.  It also prays that the OCS Ruiru Police Station to ensure that the orders of this court are obeyed and that peace prevails.

3. Upon being  served with the  application, the 2nd respondent  filed Notice of  Preliminary Objection   on a point of law whereas  the 1st respondent  only appeared through Mr Munene  advocate and intimated  to court that  he needed  sufficient  time of  7 days  to file grounds of  opposition.

4. Professor Wangai counsel for the applicant prayed that pending interpartes hearing, the court should grant in the interim prayer No. 2.  Mr Njenga counsel for the 2nd respondent  vehemently  resisted  any  attempt  by this court  to grant  any  interim  order arguing  that there  are   very  serious  issues in this matter which  the court  should consider including  the fact that there is  a valid  judgment  of this court therefore  this court  cannot grant  stay of  execution pending   nothing as there is no such prayer; that  there is  an application for review  of judgment  which does not  include a prayer for stay; that order  40  of the Civil Procedure Rules is inapplicable  to Judicial Review  matters save  during the application  for leave to apply for  Judicial Review; that the letter of  20th June  2016  is not an  order or decision  capable of  being stayed; and that  there have been systematic attempts to frustrate  the  operations of the 2nd  respondent  company  as noted by Honourable Justice  Korir  in his judgment  in this matter.

4. In a rejoinder, Professor  Wangai  maintained that his clients  would be  prejudiced if stay  of the document  is not  granted as they  shall be harassed and intimidated  by the respondents  using the  police.

5. I have carefully considered the  prayer for  interim  stay of execution  of the ‘decision’ contained  in a  purported CR 1245/69 concerning  the directorship of Githunguri Constituency Ranching Company, the 2nd  respondent  as ‘issued’ by the  1st respondent  on 20th June  2016  pending   the hearing of the application  interpartes.

6. At this stage, I shall not delve into the merits or demerits of the application dated 5th July 2016.  However, as I must  exercise  my discretion  in granting  or declining  to grant an interim order of stay, that  discretion must  be  exercised  on sound principles.  I must therefore establish whether the applicant has established, prima facie, that he deserves the interim orders of stay.

7. Stay of execution or enforcement  of  a decision  or order  serves  the purpose  of preserving  the subject matter  so that whatever  proceedings  that are pending  should not  be rendered  nugatory.

8. And in order  for this court to grant  stay, it must be satisfied  that   that stay  will  serve a  useful purpose; and that there is  a decision or order  capable of  being stayed.

9. What this  court has been shown is  a document  dated  20th  June 2016  issued to the 2nd  respondent by  the Registrar  of Companies.  It is Referenced CR 12 45/69 and which according to the applicant is a “decision ‘which is highly prejudicial to the applicant.

10. I have examined that document marked as exhibit JM1 signed by Nicholas Oduor, for Registrar of Companies.  The document is a letter addressed to the Directors of the 2nd respondent, responding to an inquiry dated 6th June 2016.  The said letter (document) gives details as follows-:

Dear Sir/(s)

RE: Githunguri Constituency Ranching Company Limited

I refer to your letter dated 6th June 2016.

According to the company’s last annual returns dated 17th December 2015, the names of directors of the above company with their particulars are as follows:……

The  nominal share capital  of the company  is kshs  200,000 divided into 15000 ordinary shares and  5000 preference  shares of  shs  10/- each.

Signed

For Registrar  of Companies.

12. From the above stated letter, the question is, is it a decision capable  of being stayed  or enforced, even  in the interim?

13. In answering the above  question, this court  must determine what a ‘decision’ is.  The Concise  Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 Edition  defines decision  as : “ a conclusion  or resolution reached  after consideration.  The action of deciding.  The quality of being decisive.”

14. On the other hand, Black’s  Law  Dictionary Ninth Edition defines ‘decisions  as “ A Judicial or Agency determination  after consideration of the facts  and the law:  especially  a ruling, order , or judgment   pronounced  by a court  when considering or disposing  of a case.”

14. From the above definitions,  a decision, no doubt, is a  determination of an issue  by some authority.

15. Re examining  the letter dated  20th June  2016, in my humble  view, it is not a decision   or a determination.  Rather, it is an  extract  of the records  held by the Registrar of Companies  on the status of  the 2nd respondent company with regard   to the directorship  and shareholding.  The letter, being a  response to an inquiry  cannot be  construed  to be a  decision of  the Registrar of  Companies.  The only  decision that   the Registrar of Companies  could have  taken, could  have been  that  of [de] registering  or receiving  the annual returns.  The applicant has not placed before this court   any application  staying or prohibiting   the registration  of the named persons  as directors of the 2nd respondent.  There is no  pending proceedings for  quashing  the  filed annual returns or confirming  the director’s/shareholding .  That being the case, and the letter dated 20th June 2016 being merely informative and not a determination or decision of any sort, this court finds that to purport to stay the  document is in essence  making orders in vain.  Courts   of law are not expected to spew forth orders in vain.

16. It is  for the above  reasons  that notwithstanding the merits or demerits  of the application dated  5th July 2016, this court finds that  the document  dated 20th June  2016  is not  a decision   capable of being  stayed  in the interim and hence the issue  of prejudice  does not arise.  Accordingly, I  decline to grant any interim  orders of  stay pending interpartes  hearing of the application  dated  5th July  2016  and  direct the parties to take a hearing date for interpartes  hearing of the said application  on priority basis.

17. Those are the orders of this court.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 6th day of July 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

6th July, 2016