Kenya African National Traders & Farmers Union (Kantafu) v Koma Rock Ranching & Farming Co-Operative Limited [2017] KEELC 3669 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to strike out a land buyer's claim, ruling that any suit showing even a semblance of a real case deserves a full trial.
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 Application and the grounds thereof meet the threshold of striking out pleadings under Order 2 Rule 15(1)(a)(b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
- 2.Whether the suit is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court process
- 3.Whether Section 76(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act ousts the court's jurisdiction in favour of the cooperative tribunal
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is frivolous or vexatious and thus liable to be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
The suit is neither frivolous nor vexatious; it discloses a serious claim that should proceed to full trial.
The Plaintiff annexed a sale agreement showing purchase of the suit land from Rose Mwanzia, member No. 125 of the Defendant, and a letter dated 28th September 1993 approving the sale. The claim is therefore not baseless or hopeless, nor annoying or intended to annoy. If the documents were forged, the Defendant would have said so or involved the police. A suit showing a mere semblance of a cause of action must go to trial.
Whether the Plaintiff is improperly seeking to enforce a contract against a non-party (privity)
The claim is not one to enforce the agreement against the Defendant; it is a complaint that the Defendant refused to effect transfer after the agreement was executed by payment and possession.
The Plaintiff does not complain of breach of the agreement by Rose Mwanzia but of the Defendant registering the title in its own name and refusing to transfer Rose Mwanzia's stake. The core issue at trial is whether the Defendant's acts are lawful and whether the Plaintiff has an equitable interest in the land, which requires full interrogation at hearing.
Whether Section 76(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act requires the dispute to be referred to the cooperative tribunal
The provision is inapplicable because the Plaintiff is not a member, present or past, of the Defendant society; and the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over title to land under Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Section 76(1) governs disputes between a society and its members or past members, which this is not. In any event, the dispute concerns occupation, use and title to land, which falls squarely within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court under Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Legal principles established
#- A frivolous claim is one which is hopeless and has no legs to stand on
- If a suit shows a mere semblance of a cause of action, it ought to be allowed to go to trial rather than be struck out
- Section 76(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act applies only to disputes between a society and its members or past members
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 26th May, 2014 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, Section 13(7)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Plaintiff's suit with costs as sought in the Chamber Summons dated 26th May, 2014
The claim discloses a semblance of a cause of action, is neither frivolous nor vexatious, and Section 76(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act does not apply since the Plaintiff is not a member of the Defendant
Costs
The Chamber Summons dated 26th May, 2014 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
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.
A frivolous claim is one which is hopeless and has no legs to stand on.
if a suit shows a mere semblance of a cause of action, … it ought to be allowed to go forward for a court of justice ought not to act in darkness without full facts of a case before it
The provisions of Section 76(1) of the Cooperative Society’s Act are not applicable as the Plaintiff is not a Defendant’s member, present or past.
For those reasons, the Chamber Summons dated 26th May, 2014 is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment at one point names the applicant's authority as 'RAPHAEL M. WARARI' while the earlier reference reads 'RAPHAEL M. WARARI', but the case is also cited in the body as 'RAPHAEL MUGWANJA WARARI supra', an inconsistent rendering of the same authority
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya African National Traders & Farmers Union (Kantafu) v Koma Rock Ranching & Farming Co-Operative Limited [2017] KEELC 3669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Chamber Summons dated 26th May, 2014 (in the suit over LR. No. Donyo Sabuku/Koma Rock Block 1/599). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3669/eng@2017-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.