John Githinji Wangondu v Raphael Gitau Njau & 5 others [1997] KECA 332 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that trustees of a registered corporate body cannot be sued personally — you must sue the organisation itself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the High Court erred in striking out the five individual defendants on the ground that they were office bearers of a corporate body under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act (Cap 164), which may sue and be sued in its corporate name.
Key legal issues
#Whether individual office bearers of a corporate body under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act may be struck out as parties to a suit against the body.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's striking out of the five individual defendants, holding that a body corporate under Cap 164 may sue and be sued in its corporate name, so the office bearers were improperly joined.
The Court noted that the learned judge struck out the five defendants because they were office bearers of a corporate body incorporated under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act, whose section 3(3) provides that the body corporate may sue and be sued in its corporate name. Hearing nothing to persuade it that the judge erred in principle or otherwise, the Court was satisfied the decision was correct and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Office bearers of a body corporate incorporated under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act (Cap 164) are not personally liable to be sued; the body corporate sues and is sued in its corporate name.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 3065 of 1996
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court (order appealed from in H.C.C.C. No. 3065 of 1996); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is cited in the judgment.
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against the striking out of the five individual defendants
The Court found no error of principle in the High Court's decision and held the appeal devoid of merit.
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
we are satisfied that the learned judge was right and we have heard nothing in support of the appeal to persuade us that the learned judge erred in principle or otherwise.
In our judgment, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The text of the judgment appears corrupted at the point where the statutory provision is quoted, merging the quote with the following sentence.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Githinji Wangondu v Raphael Gitau Njau & 5 others [1997] KECA 332 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1997. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/332/eng@1997-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.