George Kinoti Ringera v Mukiria Water Project & 9 others [2019] KEELC 4266 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A farmer lost his bid to force a Kenyan water project to reconnect his supply because he couldn't prove he was actually a registered member.
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 Learned Magistrate erred in finding the 1st respondent registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and in applying the provisions of that Act
- 2.Whether the Learned Magistrate erred in finding PW2 could not competently transfer his membership to the appellant and in failing to find the appellant entitled to use water connected to the suit land since 2008
- 3.Whether the Magistrate erred in failing to find the appellant's membership admitted by the 1st respondent and in failing to consider a pending application for judgment on admission
- 4.Whether the Magistrate erred in failing to find for the appellant despite the respondents' failure to keep records confirming the by-laws and membership
Key legal issues
#Registration under the Co-operative Societies Act
There was no evidence the 1st respondent was registered under the Act, so the trial court erred in applying it; the By-laws alone should have governed
Registration is a finding of fact and the applicability of the Act follows from registration. The first appellate court examined the record, found no proof of registration, and held the Act's provisions irrelevant. However, this error did not change the outcome because the appellant still failed to prove membership on the evidence.
Membership of the water project and entitlement to water
The appellant failed to prove he was a member; by applying for membership he admitted he was not already one
The appellant had no membership number, no payment receipt, only heard of the by-laws during cross-examination, and had applied for inclusion, showing he was not previously a member. Respect must be given to internal mechanisms governing admission to membership of such a society.
Judgment on admission
The 1st respondent's defence was a denial and blame-avoidance, not an admission; the application filed after the hearing closed was properly ignored
The 1st defendant's defence denied liability and redirected blame to co-defendants, and its officials never testified for the appellant, so no admission existed. Filing an interlocutory application after conclusion of the hearing was mischievous, and the failure to consider it did not cause prejudice.
Failure to keep records as basis for judgment
Failure to keep records was not a pleaded issue and cannot confer an automatic judgment; the plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case
Each case must be decided on the pleadings, issues and evidence. An unpleaded issue may only be decided if left to the court at trial. Had the appellant produced prima facie proof of membership, the poor record keeping could have been weighed against it; with nothing to assess, non-membership was not in dispute.
Legal principles established
#- Whether a society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act is a question of fact to be determined on evidence; absent proof of registration, the Act's provisions are irrelevant to the suit
- Judgment on admission requires an admission that is plain, obvious and unequivocal
- A plaintiff must first establish his case to the required standard, whether or not the defendant files or proves a defence
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Githongo
- SRMCC No. 3 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Environment and Land Court from the Magistrate's Court (Githongo SRMCC No. 3 of 2015)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the trial decree and allowing the appellant's claim in the lower court (mandatory injunction to reconnect water, permanent injunction, costs and any other relief)
The appellant failed to prove membership of the Mukiria Water Project and the trial magistrate's findings could not be faulted
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.
I find no evidence adduced by any party that the 1 st respondent was a co-operative society and therefore the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act were irrelevant in determining the issues raised in the suit.
By applying for membership, he admitted he was not previously a member.
filing what is supposedly an interlocutory application after a hearing has been concluded is mischievous and intended to embarrass the court process
the failure to keep records not being one of the issues pleaded and framed by the appellant, it cannot afford the appellant an automatic judgment
For the above reasons, I find that this appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states it was delivered at Meru though the court is named as Environment and Land Court, Kitale
Parties are not named in the extract; only their roles and the lower court case reference appear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Kinoti Ringera v Mukiria Water Project & 9 others [2019] KEELC 4266 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Environment and Land Court Appeal (sitting at Kitale) arising from Githongo SRMCC No. 3 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4266/eng@2019-03-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.