' REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC. APPLICATION NO. E162 OF 2024
REPUBLIC………………………………………………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERTAIVE
DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………….1 ST RESPONDENT
NENO SACCO……………………………………………….2 ND RESPONDENT
QWETU SACCO………………….…………………………3 RD RESPONDENT
SOLUTION SACCO…………………………………………4 TH RESPONDENT
BUTALI SACCO…………………………………………….5 TH RESPONDENT
IMARISHA SACCO…………………………………………6 TH RESPONDENT
MAKTABA SACCO…………………………………………7 TH RESPONDENT
APSTAR DT SACCO LTD………………………………….8 TH RESPONDENT
INVEST AND GROW SACCO……………………………..9 TH RESPONDENT
NEWFORTS SACCO………………………………………10 TH RESPONDENT
LOMPASAGO SACCO……………………………………11 TH RESPONDENT
GUSII MWALIMU SACCO……………………………….12 TH RESPONDENT
COSMOPOLITAN SACCO……………………………….13 TH RESPONDENT
SHOPPERS SACCO………………………………………..14 TH RESPONDENT
AND
PETER MANGA NDWIGA………………………1 ST EX PARTE APPLICANT
ALFRED MWADIME MLOLWA………………2 ND EX PARTE APPLICANT
TARTISIO IRUKI ITUURU……………………..3 RD EX PARTE APPLICANT
MALOVA HESBON NYIKURI………………….4 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
LANGAT KIMUTAI DAVID…………………….5 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
JOHN KIPKEMOI SIGEI……………………….6 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
ANDREW AYARAH OKWACH………………..7 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
DAVID KALACHI MOYIA……………………...8 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
GEORGE MAGUTU MWANGI………………...9 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
BERNARD NJUNJIRI MAINA………………...10 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
DAVID OGEGA NYANGAU…………………..11 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
JOHN M. NJUGUNAH…………………………12 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
WILFRED KEMBERO AIMA…………………13 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
IN THE MATTER OF A CITATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
FRANCIS MURIITHI………………………………………..1 ST CONTEMNOR
MURANGIRI ALFRED……………………………………..2 ND CONTEMNOR
RULING ON CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDERS
This ruling determines the application dated 12 th August 2025 brought under Articles 10, 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, of the Civil Procedure Act, Rule 19 of Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 and Part 81.1, Rule 81.1,2,3, 4, 5 6 & 7 of the English Civil Procedure Rules (Amendment No. 3) Rules, 2020,
The application seeks the following orders: This Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Ex-Parte Applicants to institute contempt of court proceedings against the Chairperson of the 4 th Respondent, Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives Meru County, for deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court issued on 24 th June 2025.
That the leave so granted does operate as a stay of any further steps by the 4 th Respondent, its agents or officers, including conducting elections to replace the 3 rd Ex-Parte Applicant or acting in a manner inconsistent with the said judgment and decree.
That Summons do issue to Francis Muriithi, the Chairperson of the 4 th Respondent and Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives Meru County, to personally appear before this Honourable Court and show cause why they should not be found guilty of contempt of court for deliberate disobedience of the orders issued on 24 th June 2025.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, by virtue of their contemptuous actions, are unfit to hold any office within the 4 th Respondent or office of the Director of Co-operatives Meru County to exercise any public authority, whether as officer, agent, or contractor.
That warrants of arrest do issue, to be executed by the Officer Commanding Station Meru Police Station, or any other officer as directed, for the arrest of Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, for the purposes of being committed to civil jail for disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court issued on 24 th June 2025.
That until such time as the contempt is purged through the restoration of the 3 rd Ex-Parte Applicant to his rightful position with all attendant privileges and benefits, the 4 th Respondent, Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred be denied audience before this Honourable Court, either in person or through legal representation.
That costs of this application be assessed on a punitive indemnity basis, and the same be personally borne by Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, and ordered to be paid forthwith, or recovered by direct deductions from the salary, earnings or benefits until full satisfaction.
The application is supported by the affidavit sworn on 12 th August 2025 by Tartisio Iruki Ituuri the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant’s case is that he served as a Board member of the 4 th Respondent Cooperative Society from July 2012 till May 2020 when he was elected by the Board to serve in the position of the vice chairperson. According to him, this elevation was upon his rendering exemplary service to the Sacco and active contribution to the tremendous growth of the asset base of the 4 th respondent Cooperative SACCO Society(the Society).
He states that this court rendered judgment on 24 th June 2025, wherein the Court quashed the unprocedural removal of the 3ed exparte applicant from the position as a Board Member of the 4 th respondent SACCO Society and a decree was subsequently extracted and duly served upon the 4 th respondent on 4 th July 2025. This is said to have placed the respondents under a clear legal and constitutional obligation to comply with the orders of this Court.
That despite being personally served and having full knowledge of the said orders, the 4 th respondent through its Chairperson, Mr. Francis Muriithi and a Mr. Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives Meru County, have deliberately and willfully refused to comply, in utter contempt of this Court.
It is the 3 rd exparte applicant’s further case that by a letter dated 24 th July 2025, addressed to the 3 rd ex parte applicant, Mr. Francis Muriithi informed him that his membership on the Board had ceased, relying on Minute No. MIN 13/AGM/2025 of a resolution allegedly passed during the 4 th respondent''s Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025. The letter, according to Mr. Iruki, purported to declare his position vacant and outlined preparations for a fresh election, despite the existence of a valid and binding court judgment that quashed his removal.
The 3 rd exparte applicant further states that during the said AGM of 25 th January 2025, his removal was not part of the agenda and that the reliance on that meeting to justify his removal is, therefore, a blatant misrepresentation and abuse of process.
According to the 3rd exparte applicant, it is material that the 4 th respondent had previously taken the position that this applicant’s removal was as a result of a directive from the 1 st respondent, and that the current narrative alleging a resolution from the AGM is not only inconsistent but smacks of an afterthought and deliberate mischief.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant further avers that consequently, by a letter dated 24 th July 2025, Mr. Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives, Meru County, notified the 4 th respondent’s members of an intended vetting exercise to be held on 8 th August 2025, requiring submission of nomination applications by 7 th August 2025 for purposes of replacing the applicant herein as a member of the Board of the 4 th respondent. That on 8 th August 2025, the vetting exercise proceeded as scheduled and a by-election was set for 23 rd August 2025, all in flagrant violation of a live judgment and court decree issued by this Court.
It is the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s further case that the conduct of Mr. Francis Muriithi, the 4 th respondent''s chairperson and Mr. Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives, Meru County, in declaring the seat vacant, vetting candidates and preparing for elections, despite the court''s clear decision, is not only unlawful but amounts to a gross affront to judicial authority and is therefore contemptuous.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant contends that both the 1 st and 2nd alleged contemnors have since conspired, jointly and severally, to deliberately undermine the authority of this Court by disregarding its express orders and engaging in activities that were expressly prohibited. That their actions in orchestrating, facilitating and proceeding with electoral processes to replace him despite being fully aware of the subsisting judgment and decree demonstrate willful disobedience.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant further contends that these actions of the alleged contemnors directly undermine the authority and dignity of this Court and risk rendering its judgment nugatory, thereby eroding public confidence in the judicial process.
The ex parte applicants also filed a further affidavit in response to the 4 th respondent’s replying affidavit of 12 th September 2025. The further affidavit is sworn on 3 rd October 2025 by Eliud Kiriinya who introduces himself as a member of the 4 th respondent in good standing and of membership No. 001000260660.
In the further affidavit, Mr. Kiriinya deposes that he was present during the Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025 at Gikumene Primary School in Meru County. He states that contrary to the averments in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the 4 th respondent’s replying affidavit, no agenda item relating to the removal of Mr. Tartisio Iruki Ituuru, the 3 rd ex parte applicant, was tabled, discussed or resolved at the AGM held on 25 th January 2025.
Mr. Kiriinya further states that there was no motion, oral or written nor an amendment to the agenda that suggested or proposed the removal of any board member, let alone the 3 rd ex parte applicant.
He further deposes that Section 27(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act requires that all matters to be deliberated at a general meeting be adequately and clearly communicated in advance to members. That no such notice was issued to members regarding the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant.
It was deposed that the principle of legitimate expectation, under Article 47 of the Constitution, was thus violated, as neither the members nor the 3 rd ex parte applicant had reason to anticipate such a drastic and adverse resolution being made without due notice.
The deponent further disputes the replying affidavit’s claim that the AGM passed a resolution (Minute 12/AGM/2025) removing the 3 rd ex parte applicant, asserting that no such deliberation or vote occurred; and that if the resolution exists, the deponent states that it must have been fraudulently inserted or fabricated. He depones that the alleged removal violated the Sacco’s by-laws, the Co-operative Societies Act and constitutional requirements of fairness and transparency. The referenced consultative meeting of 5 th February 2025 is said to be irrelevant because no valid AGM resolution existed to begin with and that therefore, a later meeting cannot validate an unlawful process.
The deponent also states that the removal was in fact aligned with the 1 st Respondent’s quashed directive of 17 th December 2024, and that the Directorate of Cooperatives specifically Mr. Murangiri Alfred actively facilitated the removal and subsequent irregular vetting and elections. The notice issued on 24 th July 2025 calling for vetting is said to have falsely assumed a vacancy and to have improperly usurped the Sacco’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms. These actions are described as unlawful, lacking stakeholder consultation and contrary to Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Article 10 of the Constitution.
It is also the deponent’s contention that the replacement of the 3 rd ex parte applicant continued in disregard of the ongoing court process and only stopped due to interim court orders of 22 nd August 2025. They assert that this conduct amounts to administrative overreach and potentially contempt of court. They also note that the 4 th respondent’s replying affidavit fails to attach essential evidence, such as certified AGM minutes and the signed attendance register, making the replying affidavit unreliable and lacking probative value.
The deponent concludes that the 3 rd ex parte applicant has shown a prima facie case of procedural and substantive unlawfulness in his removal and urges this Court to protect both his rights guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution and the integrity of Sacco governance from irregular executive interference.
The 1 st Alleged Contemnor’s replying affidavit
The 1 st alleged contemnor filed a replying affidavit sworn on 15 th September 2025 by Francis Murithi Rimberia who introduces himself as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Solution Sacco Society Limited, the 4 th respondent herein.
According to Mr. Murithi, on or about 17 th December 2024, the 1 st respondent herein wrote to various Sacco Societies, including the 4 th respondent, directing that the ex parte applicants herein, including the 3 rd ex parte applicant be barred from holding office as officials in any of the Primary Saccos, including the 4 th respondent Society herein.
That the proceedings herein were then, immediately thereafter, instituted by the ex parte applicants seeking for judicial review orders of certiorari quashing the said letter written by the 1 st respondent dated 17 th December 2024. The court is said to have granted leave to the ex parte applicants and directed that the said leave do operate as a stay of implementation of the letter dated 17 th December 2024 pending determination of the substantive motion.
The 4 th respondent according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, is said to have complied with the said order of the court and the 3 rd ex parte applicant continued in his position on the Board of the 4 th respondent without interference. That the court in its judgment delivered on 24 th June 2025 quashed the 1 st respondent’s letter dated 17 th December 2024, and according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, the effect of the court’s decision is that the directives communicated by the 1 st respondent through the said letter could not and cannot be implemented or pursued at all.
That the 4 th respondent’s Board accepted the court’s verdict in good faith and no Board member, including him as the Chairman, is pursuing implementation of the directive of the 1 st respondent as erroneously being alleged by 3 rd ex parte applicant in his present application dated 12 th August 2025 or at all.
It is deposed that the 3 rd ex parte applicant has, in the contents of his supporting affidavit sworn on 12 th August 2025, concealed vital information of material nature to these proceedings from this Court with the sole intention of misleading the Court.
The removal from being a member and the vice-chairman of the Board of the 4 th respondent according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, is by a resolution of the members of the 4 th respondent made during a legally constituted Annual General meeting held on 25 th January 2025 as per the 4 th respondent’s constitution and by-laws.
Further deposition is that the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein attended the said Annual General Meeting and participated in all the business and activities conducted at the said Annual General meeting, including the Motion for his removal from being a member of the Board and from being the vice chairman of the Board of the 4 th respondent SACCO Society.
The 1 st alleged contemnor contends that whereas it is true that the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant from being the vice-chairman of the Board of the 4 th respondent was not part of the Agenda contained in the notice convening the said Annual General meeting, a motion was moved by the members, immediately after the Notice had been read to the members, demanding that the issue be added to the Agenda for the day and so it was added and thereafter deliberated upon in the said AGM, and in the presence of the 3 rd ex parte applicant.
That after the resolution was passed by the members during the Annual General meeting held on 25 th January 2025, the 4 th respondent’s Board of Directors, including the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein held a consultative meeting on 5 th February 2025 at which meeting the said resolution was also deliberated upon and a unanimous decision was made by the Board, to implement the said resolution.
The decision according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, was communicated to the 3 rd ex parte applicant who was present in the Board meeting and he accepted the same without raising any objection to its implementation. That the 3 rd ex parte applicant therefore accused of material non-disclosure for withholding vital information of material nature from this Court.
The 1 st alleged contemnor also deposes that the court’s earlier judgment only quashed the 1 st respondent’s directive and did not prevent Saccos, including the 4 th respondent, from lawfully reorganizing their leadership under their by-laws.
It is contended that the 3 rd ex parte applicant never appealed or challenged the AGM resolution removing him as a member and vice-chair, and that neither did he challenge the Board’s subsequent implementation of that ADM decision. Further, that since the resolution was passed by members at the AGM, this Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with its implementation.
It is also the 1 st alleged contemnor’s case that this Court does not have the requisite legal mandate and/or jurisdiction to arbitrate on disputes involving a Board member and the Sacco or any dispute in relation to leadership positions in any Primary Sacco and that as such, this e Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s application dated 12 th August 2025.
Further, that if in any event the 3 rd ex parte applicant has any issue or complaint in regard to the resolution made by the members at the Annual General meeting, he can only challenge the same in the manner prescribed in the constitution and bylaws of the 4 th respondent SACCO Society and if not satisfied, he should then institute proceedings at the Co-operatives Tribunal and not before this Court.
The 2 nd Alleged Contemnor’s Replying Affidavit
The 2 nd alleged contemnor filed a replying affidavit sworn on 18 th September 2025 by Mr. Murangiri Alfred who introduces himself as the the Sub-County Cooperative Officer in the County Government of Meru.
In his affidavit, Mr. Murangiri depones that the County Government of Meru, through its Directorate of Cooperatives, is mandated under Section 49B (2) of the Meru County Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2025 to oversee and facilitate vetting of applicants for co-operative societies’ elective positions within the County. That this is a statutory oversight role and not an interference with member sovereignty.
He states that the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant, Mr. Tartisio Iruki Ituuru, from the Board of Solution Sacco Society was a sovereign decision of members at the duly convened Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025 and that the resolution is captured under Minute 13/AGM/2025.
Further, that following the AGM resolution, the Board of Directors of Solution Sacco Society held a consultative meeting on 5 th February 2025, where the 3 rd ex parte applicant was informed of the members’ decision and that from that date, he ceased attending Board meetings.
It is deposed that the Meru County Directorate of Cooperatives subsequently convened vetting proceedings in July and August 2025 to facilitate filling of the vacancy, consistent with the law and the Sacco by-laws and that notices were duly issued under the deponent’s hand on behalf of the Director of Cooperatives. However, that on 22 nd August 2025, the office of the Director of Cooperatives was served with a court order halting the scheduled Board elections of 23 rd August 2025, and that upon consultations with Solution Sacco Society, the elections were cancelled forthwith in compliance with the Court order.
The 2 nd alleged contemnor further deposes that the County Government of Meru has at all times complied with the orders of this Court and that it has not in any way disobeyed, disregarded or acted in contempt of the Judgment of 24 th June 2025. Mr. Murangiri states that the judgment of 24 th June 2025 expressly limited itself to quashing the 1 st respondent’s directive dated 17 th December 2024 and clarifies that nothing therein reinstated the ex parte applicants to office. According to him, the SACCO Society leadership positions are elective and subject to member control.
He contends that the ex parte applicants’ attempt to link the County Government of Meru’s statutory oversight role to the Commissioner’s quashed directive is misplaced and misleading, and that the County did not and has not implemented or enforced the said directive.
According to Mr. Murangiri, disputes concerning election or removal of officials of a cooperative society fall under the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Tribunal, and not the High Court exercising judicial review jurisdiction. He contends that the allegations that he is in contempt of Court or that he or that the County Government of Meru unlawfully interfered with the court process are without merit. He urged this Court to dismiss the application for contempt against him with costs.
The 4 th Respondent’s Replying Affidavit
The 4 th respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 12 th September 2025 by Ebuthania Esther Javani who introduces herself as the Chief Executive Officer of the 4 th respondent Cooperative Society. They also filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 30 th October 2025 by Nicholas Nteere who introduces himself as member of the 4 th respondent Society.
I note that in both affidavits, the 4 th respondent refers to the application dated 18 th August 2025 and not the application subject of contempt proceedings, which is dated 12 th August 2025. However, during oral highlights made in Court on 6 th November 2025, Mr. Mbabu counsel for the 4 th respondent intimated that he would be relying on the replying affidavit and supplementary affidavit although he did not give dates when the two affidavits were sworn.
From the Case Tracking System, following the application dated 12 th August 2025, the firm of Mbabu M’Inoti Advocates LLP only filed the replying affidavit sworn on 12 th September 2025 and the supplementary affidavit sworn on 30 th October 2025. It is therefore reasonable for this court to treat these two affidavits as the ones counsel referenced during the oral highlights made before the court. Accordingly, I will proceed to summarise the contents of the two respective affidavits herein below.
The 4 th Respondent’s case is that the 3 rd ex parte applicant was duly and procedurally removed from his position as a serving board member of the 4 th respondent during the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 25 th January 2025 at Gikumene Primary School and that this removal was in accordance with the law.
According to the 4 th respondent, the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant at the aforesaid AGM was a sovereign decision of its members, arising from deliberations on his conduct as a board member, which conduct included incitement of members during the Annual General Meeting, with the intention of disrupting proceedings, as well as the 4 th respondent’s dissatisfaction with the 3 rd exparte applicant’s role in matters leading to significant financial loss by the 4 th respondent Cooperative Society.
Further contention by the 4 th Respondent is that the decision for removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant was made independently and had no connection to the 1 st respondent’s directive dated 17 th December 2024, which was the subject of the quashed decision in the judgment of this Court rendered on dated 24th June 2025.
The 4 th respondent further contends that the judgment dated 24 th June 2025 and the decree thereof quashed the 1 st respondent''s directive of 17 th December 2024 insofar as the impugned directive purported to bar the ex parte applicants, including the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein, from holding office in their primary co-operative societies and without first according them the opportunity to be heard, a decision which the court equally found to be ultra vires as the 1 st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue such directive to cooperative societies in a devolved system of governance of cooperatives.
The 4 th respondent asserts that in any event, the judgment of this court delivered on 24 th June, 2025 explicitly noted that nothing therein ought to have been construed as reinstating the ex parte applicants to office, noting that their positions are elective and not appointive, and that the effect of certiorari is limited to quashing the impugned directive. Further, that the judgment further noted that leadership in the respective primary Saccos is elective and the same is done by members at the annual delegates or member''s meetings and therefore any subsequent actions by the respective societies must comply with the applicable law.
It is contended that the 4 th respondent''s actions in removing the applicant were in full compliance with the law and the principles of democratic member control as enshrined in the law. Similarly, that the removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant was an internal governance matter exercised by the members, independent of the 1 st respondent''s quashed directive and that that does not, therefore, constitute enforcement or perpetuation of the quashed decision.
The 4 th respondent states that its Annual General Meeting (the AGM) is the Apex Body and the highest decision-making organ of the 4 th respondent and that in the premises, the 1 st and 2 nd alleged contemnors and the 4 th respondent management could not act contrary to the AGM’s resolutions.
The 4 th respondent further contends that the judgment only restrains the 1 st respondent from unlawfully interfering with the governance of primary co-operative societies and does not require reinstating the 3 rd ex applicant to the 4 th respondent’s Board, since his removal occurred earlier through a lawful internal process.
It is additionally contended that the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s allegation of contempt is unfounded because the 4 th respondent has taken no post-judgment action that breaches the orders and that, any steps taken such as preparing for elections or filling vacancies are routine, lawful and consistent with the elective nature of the society’s leadership structures, rather than an attempt to enforce the quashed directive.
The 4 th respondent states that in any event, this honourable court issued orders on 22 nd August 2025 staying any elections scheduled for 23 rd August 2025 for replacement of the 3 rd ex parte applicant as its board member pending the mention on 24 th September 2025 and that the 4 th respondent complied with the said orders.
In the 4 th respondent’s further affidavit, the deponent, Mr. Nteere who states that he is a member of good standing of the 4 th respondent, Solution Sacco Society Ltd under membership number 0000081154, deposes that he was physically present during the said Sacco’s Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025 at Gikumene Primary School, Meru County.
It is deposed that during the AGM, one Silas Kithinji Kamui member number 00000207397 proposed to amend the Notice and Agenda of the said AGM to include a substantive Agenda to discuss outstanding KUSSCO Matters and conduct of the said Board Member Tartisio Iruki Ituuru.
Mr. Nteere deposes that he seconded the amendment and the Notice and Agenda was unanimously passed by the members and that during the discussion of that Agenda, he proposed for removal of the said board member Tartisio Iruki Ituuru because, apart from the KUSSCO financial issues, he became unruly during the meeting, disrupted proceedings, caused chaos and brought in people who caused chaos during the meeting, which actions were against the Sacco By Laws and code of conduct. According to the deponent, the chaos threatened to scuttle the said AGM and hence the need to move the said motion for removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant as a Board member of the 4 th respondent.
He further contends that during the meeting, the agenda was thoroughly discussed with members present contributing and the said 3 rd ex parte applicant was given a chance to defend himself and give an explanation and which he chose not to respond. That after a lengthy discussion, the members unanimously agreed to have Tartisio Iruki Ituuru removed as a director of the Board, from the date of the AGM.
The deponent reiterates that that the 3 rd ex parte applicant attended the AGM of 25 th January 2025, he was informed of his right to respond to the motion for his removal, he understood this right, he chose not to respond and that he stated to the members that he would remain silent on the matter.
The deponent for the 4 th respondent further states that the removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant was a sovereign decision of the members based on concerns raised about the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s conduct, including incitement aimed at disrupting the meeting and dissatisfaction with his role in matters that caused significant financial loss to the 4 th respondent cooperative society. It is also contended that the Applicant has not sought a review or appeal of the decision to remove him before the AGM, the Co-operatives Tribunal, or the Courts.
It is further deposed on behalf of the 4 th respondent, emphasizing that the removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant as a board member was an independent action by members and unrelated to the 1 st respondent’s directive of 17 th December 2024, which was later quashed by this Court. It is further asserted that disputes among Sacco members and the Sacco Society should first be lodged at the Co-operatives Tribunal.
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC. APPLICATION NO. E162 OF 2024
REPUBLIC………………………………………………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERTAIVE
DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………….1 ST RESPONDENT
NENO SACCO……………………………………………….2 ND RESPONDENT
QWETU SACCO………………….…………………………3 RD RESPONDENT
SOLUTION SACCO…………………………………………4 TH RESPONDENT
BUTALI SACCO…………………………………………….5 TH RESPONDENT
IMARISHA SACCO…………………………………………6 TH RESPONDENT
MAKTABA SACCO…………………………………………7 TH RESPONDENT
APSTAR DT SACCO LTD………………………………….8 TH RESPONDENT
INVEST AND GROW SACCO……………………………..9 TH RESPONDENT
NEWFORTS SACCO………………………………………10 TH RESPONDENT
LOMPASAGO SACCO……………………………………11 TH RESPONDENT
GUSII MWALIMU SACCO……………………………….12 TH RESPONDENT
COSMOPOLITAN SACCO……………………………….13 TH RESPONDENT
SHOPPERS SACCO………………………………………..14 TH RESPONDENT
AND
PETER MANGA NDWIGA………………………1 ST EX PARTE APPLICANT
ALFRED MWADIME MLOLWA………………2 ND EX PARTE APPLICANT
TARTISIO IRUKI ITUURU……………………..3 RD EX PARTE APPLICANT
MALOVA HESBON NYIKURI………………….4 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
LANGAT KIMUTAI DAVID…………………….5 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
JOHN KIPKEMOI SIGEI……………………….6 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
ANDREW AYARAH OKWACH………………..7 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
DAVID KALACHI MOYIA……………………...8 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
GEORGE MAGUTU MWANGI………………...9 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
BERNARD NJUNJIRI MAINA………………...10 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
DAVID OGEGA NYANGAU…………………..11 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
JOHN M. NJUGUNAH…………………………12 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
WILFRED KEMBERO AIMA…………………13 TH EX PARTE APPLICANT
IN THE MATTER OF A CITATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
FRANCIS MURIITHI………………………………………..1 ST CONTEMNOR
MURANGIRI ALFRED……………………………………..2 ND CONTEMNOR
RULING ON CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDERS
This ruling determines the application dated 12 th August 2025 brought under Articles 10, 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, of the Civil Procedure Act, Rule 19 of Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 and Part 81.1, Rule 81.1,2,3, 4, 5 6 & 7 of the English Civil Procedure Rules (Amendment No. 3) Rules, 2020,
The application seeks the following orders: This Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Ex-Parte Applicants to institute contempt of court proceedings against the Chairperson of the 4 th Respondent, Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives Meru County, for deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court issued on 24 th June 2025.
That the leave so granted does operate as a stay of any further steps by the 4 th Respondent, its agents or officers, including conducting elections to replace the 3 rd Ex-Parte Applicant or acting in a manner inconsistent with the said judgment and decree.
That Summons do issue to Francis Muriithi, the Chairperson of the 4 th Respondent and Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives Meru County, to personally appear before this Honourable Court and show cause why they should not be found guilty of contempt of court for deliberate disobedience of the orders issued on 24 th June 2025.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, by virtue of their contemptuous actions, are unfit to hold any office within the 4 th Respondent or office of the Director of Co-operatives Meru County to exercise any public authority, whether as officer, agent, or contractor.
That warrants of arrest do issue, to be executed by the Officer Commanding Station Meru Police Station, or any other officer as directed, for the arrest of Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, for the purposes of being committed to civil jail for disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court issued on 24 th June 2025.
That until such time as the contempt is purged through the restoration of the 3 rd Ex-Parte Applicant to his rightful position with all attendant privileges and benefits, the 4 th Respondent, Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred be denied audience before this Honourable Court, either in person or through legal representation.
That costs of this application be assessed on a punitive indemnity basis, and the same be personally borne by Francis Muriithi and Murangiri Alfred, and ordered to be paid forthwith, or recovered by direct deductions from the salary, earnings or benefits until full satisfaction.
The application is supported by the affidavit sworn on 12 th August 2025 by Tartisio Iruki Ituuri the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant’s case is that he served as a Board member of the 4 th Respondent Cooperative Society from July 2012 till May 2020 when he was elected by the Board to serve in the position of the vice chairperson. According to him, this elevation was upon his rendering exemplary service to the Sacco and active contribution to the tremendous growth of the asset base of the 4 th respondent Cooperative SACCO Society(the Society).
He states that this court rendered judgment on 24 th June 2025, wherein the Court quashed the unprocedural removal of the 3ed exparte applicant from the position as a Board Member of the 4 th respondent SACCO Society and a decree was subsequently extracted and duly served upon the 4 th respondent on 4 th July 2025. This is said to have placed the respondents under a clear legal and constitutional obligation to comply with the orders of this Court.
That despite being personally served and having full knowledge of the said orders, the 4 th respondent through its Chairperson, Mr. Francis Muriithi and a Mr. Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives Meru County, have deliberately and willfully refused to comply, in utter contempt of this Court.
It is the 3 rd exparte applicant’s further case that by a letter dated 24 th July 2025, addressed to the 3 rd ex parte applicant, Mr. Francis Muriithi informed him that his membership on the Board had ceased, relying on Minute No. MIN 13/AGM/2025 of a resolution allegedly passed during the 4 th respondent''s Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025. The letter, according to Mr. Iruki, purported to declare his position vacant and outlined preparations for a fresh election, despite the existence of a valid and binding court judgment that quashed his removal.
The 3 rd exparte applicant further states that during the said AGM of 25 th January 2025, his removal was not part of the agenda and that the reliance on that meeting to justify his removal is, therefore, a blatant misrepresentation and abuse of process.
According to the 3rd exparte applicant, it is material that the 4 th respondent had previously taken the position that this applicant’s removal was as a result of a directive from the 1 st respondent, and that the current narrative alleging a resolution from the AGM is not only inconsistent but smacks of an afterthought and deliberate mischief.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant further avers that consequently, by a letter dated 24 th July 2025, Mr. Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives, Meru County, notified the 4 th respondent’s members of an intended vetting exercise to be held on 8 th August 2025, requiring submission of nomination applications by 7 th August 2025 for purposes of replacing the applicant herein as a member of the Board of the 4 th respondent. That on 8 th August 2025, the vetting exercise proceeded as scheduled and a by-election was set for 23 rd August 2025, all in flagrant violation of a live judgment and court decree issued by this Court.
It is the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s further case that the conduct of Mr. Francis Muriithi, the 4 th respondent''s chairperson and Mr. Murangiri Alfred, the Director of Co-operatives, Meru County, in declaring the seat vacant, vetting candidates and preparing for elections, despite the court''s clear decision, is not only unlawful but amounts to a gross affront to judicial authority and is therefore contemptuous.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant contends that both the 1 st and 2nd alleged contemnors have since conspired, jointly and severally, to deliberately undermine the authority of this Court by disregarding its express orders and engaging in activities that were expressly prohibited. That their actions in orchestrating, facilitating and proceeding with electoral processes to replace him despite being fully aware of the subsisting judgment and decree demonstrate willful disobedience.
The 3 rd ex parte applicant further contends that these actions of the alleged contemnors directly undermine the authority and dignity of this Court and risk rendering its judgment nugatory, thereby eroding public confidence in the judicial process.
The ex parte applicants also filed a further affidavit in response to the 4 th respondent’s replying affidavit of 12 th September 2025. The further affidavit is sworn on 3 rd October 2025 by Eliud Kiriinya who introduces himself as a member of the 4 th respondent in good standing and of membership No. 001000260660.
In the further affidavit, Mr. Kiriinya deposes that he was present during the Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025 at Gikumene Primary School in Meru County. He states that contrary to the averments in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the 4 th respondent’s replying affidavit, no agenda item relating to the removal of Mr. Tartisio Iruki Ituuru, the 3 rd ex parte applicant, was tabled, discussed or resolved at the AGM held on 25 th January 2025.
Mr. Kiriinya further states that there was no motion, oral or written nor an amendment to the agenda that suggested or proposed the removal of any board member, let alone the 3 rd ex parte applicant.
He further deposes that Section 27(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act requires that all matters to be deliberated at a general meeting be adequately and clearly communicated in advance to members. That no such notice was issued to members regarding the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant.
It was deposed that the principle of legitimate expectation, under Article 47 of the Constitution, was thus violated, as neither the members nor the 3 rd ex parte applicant had reason to anticipate such a drastic and adverse resolution being made without due notice.
The deponent further disputes the replying affidavit’s claim that the AGM passed a resolution (Minute 12/AGM/2025) removing the 3 rd ex parte applicant, asserting that no such deliberation or vote occurred; and that if the resolution exists, the deponent states that it must have been fraudulently inserted or fabricated. He depones that the alleged removal violated the Sacco’s by-laws, the Co-operative Societies Act and constitutional requirements of fairness and transparency. The referenced consultative meeting of 5 th February 2025 is said to be irrelevant because no valid AGM resolution existed to begin with and that therefore, a later meeting cannot validate an unlawful process.
The deponent also states that the removal was in fact aligned with the 1 st Respondent’s quashed directive of 17 th December 2024, and that the Directorate of Cooperatives specifically Mr. Murangiri Alfred actively facilitated the removal and subsequent irregular vetting and elections. The notice issued on 24 th July 2025 calling for vetting is said to have falsely assumed a vacancy and to have improperly usurped the Sacco’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms. These actions are described as unlawful, lacking stakeholder consultation and contrary to Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Article 10 of the Constitution.
It is also the deponent’s contention that the replacement of the 3 rd ex parte applicant continued in disregard of the ongoing court process and only stopped due to interim court orders of 22 nd August 2025. They assert that this conduct amounts to administrative overreach and potentially contempt of court. They also note that the 4 th respondent’s replying affidavit fails to attach essential evidence, such as certified AGM minutes and the signed attendance register, making the replying affidavit unreliable and lacking probative value.
The deponent concludes that the 3 rd ex parte applicant has shown a prima facie case of procedural and substantive unlawfulness in his removal and urges this Court to protect both his rights guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution and the integrity of Sacco governance from irregular executive interference.
The 1 st Alleged Contemnor’s replying affidavit
The 1 st alleged contemnor filed a replying affidavit sworn on 15 th September 2025 by Francis Murithi Rimberia who introduces himself as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Solution Sacco Society Limited, the 4 th respondent herein.
According to Mr. Murithi, on or about 17 th December 2024, the 1 st respondent herein wrote to various Sacco Societies, including the 4 th respondent, directing that the ex parte applicants herein, including the 3 rd ex parte applicant be barred from holding office as officials in any of the Primary Saccos, including the 4 th respondent Society herein.
That the proceedings herein were then, immediately thereafter, instituted by the ex parte applicants seeking for judicial review orders of certiorari quashing the said letter written by the 1 st respondent dated 17 th December 2024. The court is said to have granted leave to the ex parte applicants and directed that the said leave do operate as a stay of implementation of the letter dated 17 th December 2024 pending determination of the substantive motion.
The 4 th respondent according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, is said to have complied with the said order of the court and the 3 rd ex parte applicant continued in his position on the Board of the 4 th respondent without interference. That the court in its judgment delivered on 24 th June 2025 quashed the 1 st respondent’s letter dated 17 th December 2024, and according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, the effect of the court’s decision is that the directives communicated by the 1 st respondent through the said letter could not and cannot be implemented or pursued at all.
That the 4 th respondent’s Board accepted the court’s verdict in good faith and no Board member, including him as the Chairman, is pursuing implementation of the directive of the 1 st respondent as erroneously being alleged by 3 rd ex parte applicant in his present application dated 12 th August 2025 or at all.
It is deposed that the 3 rd ex parte applicant has, in the contents of his supporting affidavit sworn on 12 th August 2025, concealed vital information of material nature to these proceedings from this Court with the sole intention of misleading the Court.
The removal from being a member and the vice-chairman of the Board of the 4 th respondent according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, is by a resolution of the members of the 4 th respondent made during a legally constituted Annual General meeting held on 25 th January 2025 as per the 4 th respondent’s constitution and by-laws.
Further deposition is that the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein attended the said Annual General Meeting and participated in all the business and activities conducted at the said Annual General meeting, including the Motion for his removal from being a member of the Board and from being the vice chairman of the Board of the 4 th respondent SACCO Society.
The 1 st alleged contemnor contends that whereas it is true that the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant from being the vice-chairman of the Board of the 4 th respondent was not part of the Agenda contained in the notice convening the said Annual General meeting, a motion was moved by the members, immediately after the Notice had been read to the members, demanding that the issue be added to the Agenda for the day and so it was added and thereafter deliberated upon in the said AGM, and in the presence of the 3 rd ex parte applicant.
That after the resolution was passed by the members during the Annual General meeting held on 25 th January 2025, the 4 th respondent’s Board of Directors, including the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein held a consultative meeting on 5 th February 2025 at which meeting the said resolution was also deliberated upon and a unanimous decision was made by the Board, to implement the said resolution.
The decision according to the 1 st alleged contemnor, was communicated to the 3 rd ex parte applicant who was present in the Board meeting and he accepted the same without raising any objection to its implementation. That the 3 rd ex parte applicant therefore accused of material non-disclosure for withholding vital information of material nature from this Court.
The 1 st alleged contemnor also deposes that the court’s earlier judgment only quashed the 1 st respondent’s directive and did not prevent Saccos, including the 4 th respondent, from lawfully reorganizing their leadership under their by-laws.
It is contended that the 3 rd ex parte applicant never appealed or challenged the AGM resolution removing him as a member and vice-chair, and that neither did he challenge the Board’s subsequent implementation of that ADM decision. Further, that since the resolution was passed by members at the AGM, this Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with its implementation.
It is also the 1 st alleged contemnor’s case that this Court does not have the requisite legal mandate and/or jurisdiction to arbitrate on disputes involving a Board member and the Sacco or any dispute in relation to leadership positions in any Primary Sacco and that as such, this e Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s application dated 12 th August 2025.
Further, that if in any event the 3 rd ex parte applicant has any issue or complaint in regard to the resolution made by the members at the Annual General meeting, he can only challenge the same in the manner prescribed in the constitution and bylaws of the 4 th respondent SACCO Society and if not satisfied, he should then institute proceedings at the Co-operatives Tribunal and not before this Court.
The 2 nd Alleged Contemnor’s Replying Affidavit
The 2 nd alleged contemnor filed a replying affidavit sworn on 18 th September 2025 by Mr. Murangiri Alfred who introduces himself as the the Sub-County Cooperative Officer in the County Government of Meru.
In his affidavit, Mr. Murangiri depones that the County Government of Meru, through its Directorate of Cooperatives, is mandated under Section 49B (2) of the Meru County Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2025 to oversee and facilitate vetting of applicants for co-operative societies’ elective positions within the County. That this is a statutory oversight role and not an interference with member sovereignty.
He states that the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant, Mr. Tartisio Iruki Ituuru, from the Board of Solution Sacco Society was a sovereign decision of members at the duly convened Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025 and that the resolution is captured under Minute 13/AGM/2025.
Further, that following the AGM resolution, the Board of Directors of Solution Sacco Society held a consultative meeting on 5 th February 2025, where the 3 rd ex parte applicant was informed of the members’ decision and that from that date, he ceased attending Board meetings.
It is deposed that the Meru County Directorate of Cooperatives subsequently convened vetting proceedings in July and August 2025 to facilitate filling of the vacancy, consistent with the law and the Sacco by-laws and that notices were duly issued under the deponent’s hand on behalf of the Director of Cooperatives. However, that on 22 nd August 2025, the office of the Director of Cooperatives was served with a court order halting the scheduled Board elections of 23 rd August 2025, and that upon consultations with Solution Sacco Society, the elections were cancelled forthwith in compliance with the Court order.
The 2 nd alleged contemnor further deposes that the County Government of Meru has at all times complied with the orders of this Court and that it has not in any way disobeyed, disregarded or acted in contempt of the Judgment of 24 th June 2025. Mr. Murangiri states that the judgment of 24 th June 2025 expressly limited itself to quashing the 1 st respondent’s directive dated 17 th December 2024 and clarifies that nothing therein reinstated the ex parte applicants to office. According to him, the SACCO Society leadership positions are elective and subject to member control.
He contends that the ex parte applicants’ attempt to link the County Government of Meru’s statutory oversight role to the Commissioner’s quashed directive is misplaced and misleading, and that the County did not and has not implemented or enforced the said directive.
According to Mr. Murangiri, disputes concerning election or removal of officials of a cooperative society fall under the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Tribunal, and not the High Court exercising judicial review jurisdiction. He contends that the allegations that he is in contempt of Court or that he or that the County Government of Meru unlawfully interfered with the court process are without merit. He urged this Court to dismiss the application for contempt against him with costs.
The 4 th Respondent’s Replying Affidavit
The 4 th respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 12 th September 2025 by Ebuthania Esther Javani who introduces herself as the Chief Executive Officer of the 4 th respondent Cooperative Society. They also filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 30 th October 2025 by Nicholas Nteere who introduces himself as member of the 4 th respondent Society.
I note that in both affidavits, the 4 th respondent refers to the application dated 18 th August 2025 and not the application subject of contempt proceedings, which is dated 12 th August 2025. However, during oral highlights made in Court on 6 th November 2025, Mr. Mbabu counsel for the 4 th respondent intimated that he would be relying on the replying affidavit and supplementary affidavit although he did not give dates when the two affidavits were sworn.
From the Case Tracking System, following the application dated 12 th August 2025, the firm of Mbabu M’Inoti Advocates LLP only filed the replying affidavit sworn on 12 th September 2025 and the supplementary affidavit sworn on 30 th October 2025. It is therefore reasonable for this court to treat these two affidavits as the ones counsel referenced during the oral highlights made before the court. Accordingly, I will proceed to summarise the contents of the two respective affidavits herein below.
The 4 th Respondent’s case is that the 3 rd ex parte applicant was duly and procedurally removed from his position as a serving board member of the 4 th respondent during the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 25 th January 2025 at Gikumene Primary School and that this removal was in accordance with the law.
According to the 4 th respondent, the removal of the 3 rd ex parte applicant at the aforesaid AGM was a sovereign decision of its members, arising from deliberations on his conduct as a board member, which conduct included incitement of members during the Annual General Meeting, with the intention of disrupting proceedings, as well as the 4 th respondent’s dissatisfaction with the 3 rd exparte applicant’s role in matters leading to significant financial loss by the 4 th respondent Cooperative Society.
Further contention by the 4 th Respondent is that the decision for removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant was made independently and had no connection to the 1 st respondent’s directive dated 17 th December 2024, which was the subject of the quashed decision in the judgment of this Court rendered on dated 24th June 2025.
The 4 th respondent further contends that the judgment dated 24 th June 2025 and the decree thereof quashed the 1 st respondent''s directive of 17 th December 2024 insofar as the impugned directive purported to bar the ex parte applicants, including the 3 rd ex parte applicant herein, from holding office in their primary co-operative societies and without first according them the opportunity to be heard, a decision which the court equally found to be ultra vires as the 1 st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue such directive to cooperative societies in a devolved system of governance of cooperatives.
The 4 th respondent asserts that in any event, the judgment of this court delivered on 24 th June, 2025 explicitly noted that nothing therein ought to have been construed as reinstating the ex parte applicants to office, noting that their positions are elective and not appointive, and that the effect of certiorari is limited to quashing the impugned directive. Further, that the judgment further noted that leadership in the respective primary Saccos is elective and the same is done by members at the annual delegates or member''s meetings and therefore any subsequent actions by the respective societies must comply with the applicable law.
It is contended that the 4 th respondent''s actions in removing the applicant were in full compliance with the law and the principles of democratic member control as enshrined in the law. Similarly, that the removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant was an internal governance matter exercised by the members, independent of the 1 st respondent''s quashed directive and that that does not, therefore, constitute enforcement or perpetuation of the quashed decision.
The 4 th respondent states that its Annual General Meeting (the AGM) is the Apex Body and the highest decision-making organ of the 4 th respondent and that in the premises, the 1 st and 2 nd alleged contemnors and the 4 th respondent management could not act contrary to the AGM’s resolutions.
The 4 th respondent further contends that the judgment only restrains the 1 st respondent from unlawfully interfering with the governance of primary co-operative societies and does not require reinstating the 3 rd ex applicant to the 4 th respondent’s Board, since his removal occurred earlier through a lawful internal process.
It is additionally contended that the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s allegation of contempt is unfounded because the 4 th respondent has taken no post-judgment action that breaches the orders and that, any steps taken such as preparing for elections or filling vacancies are routine, lawful and consistent with the elective nature of the society’s leadership structures, rather than an attempt to enforce the quashed directive.
The 4 th respondent states that in any event, this honourable court issued orders on 22 nd August 2025 staying any elections scheduled for 23 rd August 2025 for replacement of the 3 rd ex parte applicant as its board member pending the mention on 24 th September 2025 and that the 4 th respondent complied with the said orders.
In the 4 th respondent’s further affidavit, the deponent, Mr. Nteere who states that he is a member of good standing of the 4 th respondent, Solution Sacco Society Ltd under membership number 0000081154, deposes that he was physically present during the said Sacco’s Annual General Meeting held on 25 th January 2025 at Gikumene Primary School, Meru County.
It is deposed that during the AGM, one Silas Kithinji Kamui member number 00000207397 proposed to amend the Notice and Agenda of the said AGM to include a substantive Agenda to discuss outstanding KUSSCO Matters and conduct of the said Board Member Tartisio Iruki Ituuru.
Mr. Nteere deposes that he seconded the amendment and the Notice and Agenda was unanimously passed by the members and that during the discussion of that Agenda, he proposed for removal of the said board member Tartisio Iruki Ituuru because, apart from the KUSSCO financial issues, he became unruly during the meeting, disrupted proceedings, caused chaos and brought in people who caused chaos during the meeting, which actions were against the Sacco By Laws and code of conduct. According to the deponent, the chaos threatened to scuttle the said AGM and hence the need to move the said motion for removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant as a Board member of the 4 th respondent.
He further contends that during the meeting, the agenda was thoroughly discussed with members present contributing and the said 3 rd ex parte applicant was given a chance to defend himself and give an explanation and which he chose not to respond. That after a lengthy discussion, the members unanimously agreed to have Tartisio Iruki Ituuru removed as a director of the Board, from the date of the AGM.
The deponent reiterates that that the 3 rd ex parte applicant attended the AGM of 25 th January 2025, he was informed of his right to respond to the motion for his removal, he understood this right, he chose not to respond and that he stated to the members that he would remain silent on the matter.
The deponent for the 4 th respondent further states that the removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant was a sovereign decision of the members based on concerns raised about the 3 rd ex parte applicant’s conduct, including incitement aimed at disrupting the meeting and dissatisfaction with his role in matters that caused significant financial loss to the 4 th respondent cooperative society. It is also contended that the Applicant has not sought a review or appeal of the decision to remove him before the AGM, the Co-operatives Tribunal, or the Courts.
It is further deposed on behalf of the 4 th respondent, emphasizing that the removal of the 3 rd exparte applicant as a board member was an independent action by members and unrelated to the 1 st respondent’s directive of 17 th December 2024, which was later quashed by this Court. It is further asserted that disputes among Sacco members and the Sacco Society should first be lodged at the Co-operatives Tribunal.
[...truncated]