Maweu & another v Wambua & 3 others (Land Case E019 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4801 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado struck out a church's land dispute application because the church sued in the wrong name and the pastor lacked authority.
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 Plaintiffs have the locus standi to initiate and maintain this suit/application
Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd Plaintiff, Deliverance Church, could maintain the suit in its own name
It could not; as a registered society it is not a body corporate and has no capacity to sue in its own name
The letter from the Assistant Registrar of Societies, uncontroverted by the Plaintiffs, confirmed Deliverance Church is a society under the Societies Act with named registered officials. Kenyan law is settled that a society is not a body corporate and can only sue or be sued through its registered officials. The church was therefore, in law, a non-existent person incapable of maintaining the action.
Whether the 1st Plaintiff had locus standi to sue on behalf of Deliverance Church
He did not; he was not a registered official of the church and his purported letter of authority was insufficient
The 1st Plaintiff relied on a letter by Bishop Jackson Muema authorizing him as custodian of church property. However, the Registrar of Societies listed different officials, and neither the 1st Plaintiff nor Muema appeared among them. The letter did not even authorize the 1st Plaintiff to sue on behalf of the church, so he lacked the right to bring or maintain the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A society registered under the Societies Act is not a body corporate and must sue or be sued through its registered officials, not in its own name
- A non-existent or unincorporated plaintiff is a mere name with no legal existence and cannot maintain an action
- Locus standi must be considered at the earliest opportunity, as its absence equates to a court acting without jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18 December 2025 (referred to in the final order as dated 2nd February 2026) is struck out
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (Cap. 8D), as invoked by the Plaintiffs
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit property Plot No. B290, Masimba, Kajiado
The suit was incompetent as the Plaintiffs lacked locus standi; the 2nd Plaintiff, a society under the Societies Act, cannot sue in its own name and the 1st Plaintiff had no authority to sue on its behalf
Maintenance of status quo pending hearing and determination of the suit
The application was struck out for want of capacity; the merits were not considered
Declaration that the Plaintiffs are the lawful exclusive occupants of the suit property
Not considered; the application was incompetent and struck out
Costs
Costs of the application to the Defendants
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 accordingly strike out the application dated 2nd February 2026 with costs to the Defendants. Orders accordingly.
In Kenya the law is settled that a society under the Societies Act is not a body corporate; it has no legal capacity to sue or be sued in its own name but in the name of its registered oficials.
The upshot is that the 1st Plaintifi lacks the locus standi, the right to bring this suit or be heard before this court on behalf of Deliverance Church.
Locus standi concerns the suficiency and directness of a litigant’s interest in proceedings which warrants his or her title to prosecute the claim asserted, and should be one of the first things to establish in a litigation.
Issues in the judgment
#The application is dated 18 December 2025 in the introduction, supported by an affidavit sworn on 2 February 2026, but the final order strikes out 'the application dated 2nd February 2026'
The 1st Defendant's replying affidavit is inconsistently dated 'sworn on 10th April, 2016 April'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maweu & another v Wambua & 3 others (Land Case E019 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4801 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case at Kajiado (Notice of Motion dated 18 December 2025 in the main suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4801/eng@2026-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.