Albert Kigera Karume & 2 others v Kung’u Gatabaki & 6 others [2015] KEHC 540 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

 CIVIL CASE NO.  125 OF 2015

ALBERT KIGERA KARUME ………………………….....................……………1ST.PLAINTIFF

SAMUEL WANJEMA KARUME……………………….….....................………..2^ND PLAINTIFF

LUCY WANJIRU KARUME………………………………………..................….3^RD PLAINTIFF 

VERSUS

KUNG’U GATABAKI &MARGARET NDUTA KAMITHI                                                                  

(sued as trustees of the Njenga Karume Trust…............................……1^ST DEFENDANT

THE NJENGA KARUME TRUST REGISTERED TRUSTEED……………….2^ND DEFENDANT

AND

GRACE NJOKI NJENGA KARUME…………......................……….1^ST INTERESTED PARTY

JANE MUKUHI MATU………………………..................…………..2^ND INTERESTED PARTY

TERESIA NJERI KARUME …………………......................………..3^RD INTERESTED PARTY

DR. FRANSISCA WANJIKU KAHIU………………..........................4^TH INTERESTED PARTY

COURT DIRECTIONS

This matter  was referred  to me by the Presiding  Judge of the High Court Division and  the same  was mentioned on 24^th November 2015  for directions  on how to  proceed  in view  of the many/ a multiplicity  of applications on record, all requiring  disposal  in one  way or  the other to facilitate  the hearing and  determination of the suit herein which  was instituted  by way of Originating Summons  dated 25^th March 2015  on the same day.  Simultaneous with the filing of the Originating Summons the plaintiff/applicants also filed an application dated 25^th March 2015 under certificate of urgency seeking various prohibitory and mandatory orders to prevent alleged wastage of trust properties.

The main Originating Summons seeks for removal of the defendants as trustees of the Njenga Karume Trust.  There are interim orders in place following the ruling dated 17^th September 2015 by Honourable Mabeya J.  In place  are also two applications for contempt of court orders, application for disqualification of an  advocate from representing  some  parties  on record, an application by interested  parties for  injunction, another application  to strike out  the application for  injunction and a preliminary objection .  

On 24^th November 2015 this court received various representations on the mode of proceeding with this matter to its logical conclusion in view of the multiple applications and counter applications on record as mentioned above.

In the view of Senior Counsel  Mr Oraro representing  the 1^st defendant, the court should direct  that the main  Originating Summons be heard  expeditiously since  the subsequent  application that  seek dependency provision is not part  of the Originating Summons  and it diverts  the court’s attention  from the main issues  raised in the Originating Summons  by inviting  other  parties  to come  in and administer  the trust and hence the  preliminary objection  raised by the 1^st defendant  so that  the court can determine  whether  or not the interested parties  have  locus  in this matter.  Senior Counsel urged the court to economically dispose of the matter herein by avoiding collateral proceedings.  Further, that the proceedings with interlocutory issues must comply with the law not because the issues are emotive and attract the court’s attention.

The submission by Mr Oraro Senior Counsel were  echoed  by Mr Musyoka counsel for the plaintiffs  who submitted  and urged the court to direct that all parties who had  not filed their reply to the Originating Summons  should  be given  timelines  to file such responses  and the Originating Summons  be made ready for hearing.  Further, that the plaintiffs would be ready to abandon their application including the application for contempt of court if the interim orders remained in place.

Mr Musyoka also proposed that the  application by  the interested parties  is important  and that the plaintiffs  preference  is that it be heard together  with Mr Macharia -2^nd defendant’s counsel application seeking to strike out  the  interested  parties’ application with the  latter application being treated  as a  response  to the 3^rd and 8^th  interested  parties’ application. 

Mr Macharia  counsel for the 2^nd  defendant proposed that his client  preferred  to have the main Originating Summons heard since the issues raised  by the plaintiff’s  application for interim orders  and those  raised by Mr Kingara’s client’s –the 3^rd and 8^th  interested  parties  are all sub issues  to the Originating Summons .  Counsel however  submitted that if that  does not work  then the preliminary  objection by the 1^st defendant  and  the application by the  2^nd defendant  should be  disposed  of first since the  2^nd defendant’s  application raise issues  of whether Mr Kingara’s application  on behalf  of the 3^rd and 8^th  interested parties can be heard at  all.  Mr Macharia also contended that his client’s application for contempt of court can be conveniently disposed of together with the preliminary objection and application to strike out the 3^rd and 8^th interested parties’ application.

Mr Cohen representing  the 1^st interested  party and  holding  brief for  Mr Ahmed Nasir Senior Counsel submitted that  the Originating  Summons  should take  precedence  since the applications pending  are subjecting  the interested parties  as beneficiaries  to  untold  suffering due to the injunctive orders which are  in force. 

On his  part, Mr  Wena Counsel for  the 2^nd, 5^th , 6^th and 7^th interested  parties   submitted  that since   they had not  filed  any application on record, they urged that the whole  suit be heard expeditiously but that  pending the  hearing  and determination of the originating Summons an order  for  provision of dependants  should be  made.

Mr Kamau Karori  counsel for the  4^th interested party submitted that  his client  does not  support  an application for provision since  those issues  are also raised in  the Originating Summons and which matters require  evidence  since parties  cannot access  the benefits  under the trust due  to the pending interlocutory motions  and that the court should not  give preference  to any applications as there are  no special motions.  He urged the court to give an early hearing date to have the Originating Summons heard and determined on merits.

Finally, and last but not least was Mr Kingara’s submissions on behalf  of the 3^rd and 8^th interested  parties who submitted that he had  filed the  application on behalf  of  7 beneficiaries who had not  received  anything  from the trust  and that one of  the beneficiaries  is diabetic.  He urged the  court to look at the main  purpose   of the trust and that trustees  appear  not  to be interested  in  the welfare of the beneficiaries  while they (  trustees  and employees) are catered  for to the exclusion  of the actual  beneficiaries.  Mr  Kingara  urged that the application for provision for dependants be addressed  urgently  and if possible  the interested parties be allowed  to collect rental income as it is the most urgent  issue  involving medical and school fees  requirements  and that the hearing  of the Originating Summons  might take longer.  He was also of the view that the Preliminary Objection by the 1^st defendant can also be heard together with the application by his clients.

I  have  carefully and anxiously  considered all  the able submissions  by counsels for the parties regarding how the  many interlocutory applications and preliminary  objections  should be  considered by the court  vis avis the substantive  Originating Summons.

The Originating Summons  seeks for  declarations for removal  of the defendants  as  trustees of the Njenga  Karume trust  and their replacement  for  reasons  that they are not  administering  the trust  in accordance with  the trust instrument  which in effect is  not  serving the interest  of the plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of the trust.  The originating Summons also seeks for an order of account, assessment of the loss and damages suffered by the trust out of the alleged acts of wastage of the trust and for indemnity for such loses and damage.

The 1^st defendant  raised  a Preliminary Objection dated  1^st April  2015 which Preliminary Objection was disposed  of by Honourable Mabeya J on 17^th September  2015  together  with the  motion dated  2^nd April  2015  which  sought  to vacate  the interim  orders obtained  exparte in the first instance on 27^th March 2015.   The Learned Judge also varied the orders of 27th March 2015.

On 17^th April 2015 the 8^th interested party Maurice Wagachira Karume was enjoined to the proceedings.  As at 4^th November 2015, counsel  for the 3^rd  and 8^th interested parties  was indicating  to court  that he  would still be  filing an application for joinder although on 9^th April 2015  Honourable Sergon J directed  the joining  of all legitimate  parties  by 17^th April 2015. Nonetheless, no court of law would decline to allow the joining of legitimate and or necessary parties to suits at an appropriate time.

The court also notes  that not  only  are there  on record  applications counter applications  but also  preliminary  objection notices  as well as  notices to  cross examine  deponents  of some  affidavits  filed on record as well as  applications for contempt of court.  It  therefore follows that with each  party seeking to be heard on their  own interlocutory  applications, this  court will no doubt  take a considerable  period  of time hearing each party separately  and delivering  rulings on each  of the applications  which applications  all carry sufficient  weight to be  considered on their own merits although  it is conceded that in some instances some of the applications could be merged and heard together and others abandoned in the  interest  of expedition. 

The court  further  notes that  apart  from the  Originating Summons  all the other  applications  are interlocutory and are not  likely to resolve the weighty issues  which are raised  in the  substantive Originating Summons  which issues  also generate  several ancillary questions  that nonetheless  must be  considered  while determining  the merits  of the Originating Summons.  In  other words, the interlocutory  applications and preliminary objections  on record  cannot effectually, effectively and completely   determine all  the issues  raised  in the dispute  herein.

This court  also takes  note that the interests  of beneficiaries  to the  trust form the substratum of the objectives  of the Njenga Karume Trust  and  it is for  that very reason that this dispute was instituted  in court  and several interested parties enjoined  to bring to an end the dispute between the Registered Trustees and the beneficiaries of the Trust.

The court observes  that indeed, albeit the 3^rd and 8^th interested parties application seeks for  provision, their  interests  and the interests  of all other  interested  parties, beneficiaries  as well as the interest of  the plaintiffs  who instituted  this suit are akin.  In other words, the interests  of the plaintiffs and those of the interested  parties  are not  adverse to each other and  in as much as the said parties are  variously  referred  to as plaintiffs  and or interested  parties, their  main goal is common, that  of  having the defendants/registered trustees  removed and replaced, and the  trust being  administered  in accordance  with its primary objectives.  It therefore follows that when directions on the mode of hearing of the Originating Summons are given, most likely, all interested parties shall team up with the plaintiffs.

The court does  appreciate  the fact that some  beneficiaries claim that they are in dire need of  school fees  and medical care and  attention and therefore  they would require interim  orders for provision to meet those  basic  yet  fundamental needs  and rights, although there  are serious  objections  raised as to the capacity  of those interested  parties to be  heard in this suit.

I reiterate that the nature of litigation displayed in this suit cannot be under estimated.  But   to attempt  to hear  each and every application singularly or even collectively in view of the varied issues that each application raises is to allow litigate by installments  and thereby delay the fair, just, expeditious  and proportionate  disposal of disputes which is  counter  the  overriding  objectives contemplated by Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act which  enact that:

1. The overriding  objective of this Act  and the Rules  made hereunder  is to facilitate  the just, expeditious, proportionate  and affordable  resolution  of the Civil Disputes  governed  by the Act.
2. The court shall, in the exercise of its powers under this Act or the interpretation of any of its provisions, seeks to give effect to the overriding objective specified in Sub Section (1).
3. A party to civil proceedings  or an advocate for such a party  is under a duty to assist  the  court to further the overriding objectives  of  the Act, to that effect, to participate  in the processes of the court and to comply  with the  directions and orders of the court

1B (1) for the purposes   of furthering the overriding  objectives  specified  in Section 1A, the court shall handle  all  matters  presented  before  it for the purposes  of attaining  the following  aims:

1. The just determination of the proceedings.
2. The efficient disposal of the business of the court.
3. The efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources.
4. The timely disposal  of the proceedings, and all  other  proceedings in the court, at a cost  affordable by the respective  parties  and
5. The use of suitable technology.

This court is duty bound to apply the above principles of law in determining how this dispute has to be resolved. Since the initial objections  to the main Originating Summons have not succeeded, it follows that the Originating Summons  as instituted  is technically sound  save that ‘pleadings’  have not closed and therefore  there is  room for  amendments  thereof  if need be.

I am  also alive to the Constitutional provisions  of Article 159  2 (b)  of the  Constitution which oblige  this  court to administer  justice  without delay, while of course, ensuing that expedition  is balanced  with fairness, justice  and the right  to a fair hearing, to adequate facilities  and opportunity  for each party to prepare  for the hearing and ultimately to facilitate access justice  for all.

I must clarify that in my view, an application for  provision or to  preserve  the trust  property which is  suspected to be  undergoing  wastage is not a waste of judicial time.  Equally, neither are the applications by the other parties or preliminary objections frivolous on the face of it.  However, it is clear from the submissions  by nearly all the  parties  advocates  on record  that the  parties are  desirous  of having the  Originating Summons  herein determined  on priority basis  and   that is the reason why  majority  of the parties  are willing  to abandon   their respective applications counter applications and preliminary objections including contempt of court applications in favour of  an expeditious  hearing and therefore urged the court to direct  that parties who had not  filed responses  to the Originating  Summons be given timelines  to comply to facilitate  expeditious  hearing and disposal of the Originating Summons.

The general rule is that where there is an application for contempt of court then the court must first determine that application before hearing any other application or preliminary objections, and application to strike out pleadings. However, the court can direct that the Preliminary Objection or counter application shall be heard together, with preliminary objection forming responses to the application.(see Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil procedure Rules).

In the  instant case, and taking  into account  the submissions by learned  counsels for the parties, I hold the  view that  the best interest of  all parties to this suit  shall be  well served  if  I make the following  directives.

1. That to avoid litigation by  installments  and hence embarking  on mini trials  that will not resolve the  very emotive issues  raised by each of  the parties  to these proceedings and to  effectually, completely and expeditiously determine this suit:-

1. All interlocutory applications and preliminary objections be and  are  hereby dispensed  with;
2. All parties to this suit  who  wish to respond to the Originating Summons  do file and serve  on all the other parties  replying  affidavits  and documents  intended   to be relied  upon  at the hearing  within the next  14 days   from the date hereof .
3. That this  matter be mentioned  on 17^th December  2015  for  pre-trial  directions and for giving of  directions  on the mode  of disposal  of the Originating Summons  upon which a hearing date  on priority basis shall be fixed and in  any event not later than 2 months  from 17^th December 2015.
4. That the interim orders issued and extended by the court on the application by the plaintiffs shall remain in force until the suit is heard and determined   on priority basis as directed above.

Those are the directions of this court given at Nairobi in open court this 3^rd day of December, 2015.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Musyoka and Mr Munge advocates for the plaintiffs

Senior Counsel Mr Oraro with Miss Barasa for the 1^st defendant

Mr Waweru Gatonye for 2^nd Defendant

Mr Odari h/b for Mr Kamau Karori for the 4^th Interested Party

Miss Kimere h/b for Mr Gichuki Kingara for the 3^rd and 8^th Interested Parties

Mr Cohen H/B for Ahmednasir SC for the 1^st Interested Party

Mr Mumbia h/b for Mr Wena for the 2^nd, 5^th, 6^th and 7^th Interested Parties

Court Assistant:  Samuel

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

3/12/2015