REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E665 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29(A), 29(C), 37, 39, 40, 73, 165, 258, 259 AND 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE SOCIETIES ACT CAP 108 LAWS OF KENYA AND ITS VARIOUS AMENDMENTS, [ACT NO. 4 OF 1968, ACT NO. 10 OF 1997, LEGAL NOTICE 71 OF 2003, ACT NO. 19 OF 2015, LEGAL NOTICE 105 OF 2017]
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE SOCIETIES RULES, ITS VARIATIONS AND AMENDEMENTS [LEGAL NOTICE 62 OF 1968, LEGAL NOTICE 243 OF 1988, LEGAL NOTICE 84 OF 1997, LEGAL NOTICE 71 OF 2003, LEGAL NOTICE 259 OF 2021]
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: RESCISSION, CANCELLATION, RE-REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY ALLEGEDLY REFERRED TO AS GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL OF NAME CHANGE OF SOCIETY NO. GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: DISPUTE ON OWNERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE NAME GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH AND OWNERSHIP OF THE EFFECTS AND ASSETS BELONGING TO GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH
-BETWEEN-
GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH
INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) ……...…….................. 1 ST PETITIONER
TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD
CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) …………. 2 ND PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) ................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD
CHURCH (SOC./7670) ……………………………..…... 2 ND RESPONDENT
REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KENYA ......................... 3 RD RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL .................................................. 4 TH RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1. The Petition dated 29 th November 2024 describes the parties as follows:
2. The 1 st Petitioner herein GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) is a society duly registered as such under the Societies Act Cap, Laws of Kenya.
3. The 2 nd Petitioner herein TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700 is the registered trustees of the 1 st Petitioner.
4. The 1 st Respondent GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) is a society said to be registered under the Societies Act, Laws of Kenya.
5. The 2 nd Respondent TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) are the trustees of the 1 st Respondent herein.
6. The 3 rd Respondent REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KENYA herein is the Registrar of Societies responsible for maintenance and registration of the record of societies in Kenya.
7. The 4 th Respondent herein is the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya duly authorized representative of the government as set out under Article 156 of the Constitution.
8. The Petition involves a legal dispute between the Gospel of God Church International (SOC./45700) and its registered trustees against Gospel of God Church (SOC./7670), its trustees, the Registrar of Societies, and the Attorney General concerning the lawful registration, ownership and exclusive right to use the name "Gospel of God Church," alongside the entitlement to property and assets acquired under that identity.
9. The factual background is that The Gospel of God Church (SOC. 7670) was introduced in Kenya in 1968 and was initially exempted from registration. Over the years, it acquired property and established a strong presence, but leadership disputes and government intervention in 1985 led to the expulsion of non-Kenyan leaders. Local members elected new officials in July 1985, but shortly afterward, the Registrar rescinded the church’s exemption, effectively deregistering it. Attempts by the local leadership to re-register or appeal were consistently rejected between 1985 and 1987, leaving the society legally non-existent.
10. The Petitioners aver that they were originally registered as, “Glorious Gospel of God Church of Kenya” under registration No. SOC. 45700 in 2004 and later renamed “Gospel of God Church International.” That this entity acquired assets and functioned lawfully until 2009, when the Registrar reinstated the previously deregistered SOC. 7670 without involving the 1985 local leadership. This reinstatement created conflicts over the rightful use of the church’s name, culminating in directives in 2024 requiring SOC. 45700 to revert to its former name or face cancellation. The Petitioners argue that these directives violate their constitutional rights, including fair administrative action, property rights, equality, and legitimate expectation, and they seek judicial review orders, declarations of exclusive rights to the name, and compensation for damages.
The Petition
11. The Petition is dated 29 th November 2024 and seeks the following Declarations and Orders:-
(a) A declaration that the Petitioners herein have the sole and exclusive rights to use, apply and deploy the use of the name Gospel of God church;
(b) A mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued stopping the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent herein from using, applying and deploying the use of the name Gospel of God church;
(c) The Honourable Court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court to quash the decisions and Rulings by the 3 rd Respondent issued on 20 th August 2024 and 18 th October 2024;
(d) The Honourable court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review order of Prohibition to prohibit the Respondents or any of their agents, officers, or any person acting on behalf of the Respondents from implementing the decisions issued on 18 th October 2024;
(e) The Honourable court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review order of an order of mandamus directing the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents herein to comply with their own rulings and decisions as communicated on 2 nd October 1985, 24 th February 1987, 21 st April 1987 dismissing and or denying the appeal filed for and on behalf of leadership of Gospel of God church SOC 7670 elected on 21 st July 1985;
(f) A declaration that the Petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair trial and fair hearing as guaranteed by Articles 25 (c) and 50 (1) & (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 have been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(g) A declaration that the Petitioner’s constitutional right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed by Article 27 (1), (2), (3) & (5) of the constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(h) A declaration that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to Access to Information as guaranteed by Article 35 (1) (b) of the constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(i) A declaration that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to fair administrative action as guaranteed by Article 47(1) & (2) of the Constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(j) A declaration that the Petitioners’ right to legitimate expectation has been infringed by the Respondent institutions;
(k) An order for full compensation for General and Aggravated damages;
(l) Costs of this Petition;
(m) Interest on (f) and (g) above (sic)
(n) Any other or further relief as this Honourable court may deem fit to grant
12. The Petition is further supported by the sworn affidavit of Francis Mucheru Mwangi, the General Secretary of Gospel of God Church International (SOC. 45700), dated evenly with the Petition. The deponent outlines the history of the original church (SOC. 7670), which was introduced in Kenya in 1968, exempted from registration on 26 th August 1968 and subsequently acquired substantial land and property in Nairobi and registered a trust deed.
13. The deponent details how government interventions in 1984 and 1985 resulted in the ordered departure and deportation of the church’s foreign leadership. Following these developments, Kenyan church members conducted an emergency election on 21 st July 1985, electing local leadership. However, on 23 rd August 1985, the Assistant Registrar of Societies rescinded the church’s exemption from registration under Section 13 of the Societies Act , a decision published via Gazette Notice No. 3835 on 30 th August 1985.
14. He swears that subsequent efforts and formal appeals between October 1985 and April 1987 by the elected Kenyan leadership to re-register the society were repeatedly dismissed by both the Registrar and the Attorney General, who explicitly noted that the entity no longer existed in law.
15. It is stated that to maintain legal operations, the same local leadership registered “Glorious Gospel of God Church of Kenya” (SOC. 45700) on 7 th July 2004 and subsequently secured approval from the Registrar on 22 nd March 2005, to change the name to “Gospel of God Church International”.
16. The deponent notes that the church created new registered trusts and continued acquiring property under this name. Despite previous final rejections, on 11 th November 2009, the Registrar reinstated the deregistered SOC. 7670 without consulting the 1985 elected leadership or issuing a gazette notice.
17. It is deposed that this generated conflicting regulatory directives, culminating in decisions on 20 th August 2024 and 18 th October 2024, where the Registrar ordered SOC. 45700 to revert to “Glorious Gospel of God Church” within 30 days or face cancellation.
18. The deponent asserts that the Registrar’s actions and directives violate the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to a fair trial and fair hearing under Articles 25 and 50, equality and non-discrimination under Article 27, access to information under Article 35 , protection of property rights over their registered name under Article 40 , and fair administrative action under Article 47 .
19. The deponent avers that the Registrar breached the Petitioners’ legitimate expectation, that SOC. 7670 had ceased to exist in law and that SOC. 45700 held the exclusive right to the name. It is their prayer that the Court should grant the prayers in the Petition to prevent substantial injustice.
20. Simultaneous with the Petition, the Petitioners also filed a Notice of Motion Application, seeking urgent court orders to certify the matter as urgent and issue temporary injunctions and conservatory orders. Specifically, the Petitioners are seeking to stay an administrative decision issued on 18 th October 2024, by the Registrar of Societies and communicated on 8 th November 2024 and to stop the Registrar of Societies and the Attorney General from deregistering, cancelling, or rescinding the 1 st Petitioner’s registration or forcing them to revert to their former name, ‘Glorious Gospel of God Church’, pending the hearing and determination of the main Petition.
Responses
21. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, Grounds of Opposition and a Replying Affidavit all in opposition to the petition and the Notice of motion.The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ Grounds of Opposition are dated 4 th December 2024 and seek to have the Petition and Motion dismissed on the following grounds:
(1 THAT the instant application together with the petition filed herein is not only misconceived and bad in law but also incompetent as it has failed to set out with reasonable degree of precision that of which the Petitioners complains, provisions said to have been infringed or violated and the manner in which they are alleged to have been infringed or violated as was enunciated in the celebrated case of Anarita Karimi - Versus-Republic (No.1) (1979 1 KLR 154 and Mumo Matemu - Versus-Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Civil Appeal No.290 of 2012(2013), simply put, the petition filed herein fails the specificity test.
(2 THAT the petitioners have not exhausted other remedies as provided by the Societies Act. Hence, the Notice of Motion Application and Petition herein is premature.
(3 THAT Section 15 of the Societies Act provides for an appeal to this Honourable Court against the decision of the Cabinet Secretary and not a Notice of Motion Application and/or Petition who ought to have heard the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.
(4 THAT the petitioners no longer exist in the eyes of the law as communicated to them, that their certificate had been cancelled vide a letter by the Registrar of Societies dated 1.8.2005, which registrar’s decision has never been appealed against as per Section 15 of the Societies Act.
(5 THAT the instant Notice of Motion application and petition herein amounts to an abuse of the court process as it fails to appreciate that matters averred by the applicants largely forms what should be their grounds of appeal to the cabinet secretary against the Registrar’s decision. Thus, the Notice application and Petition should be dismissed with costs.
22. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19 th February 2025 seeking to have the Noice of Motion and Petition struck out entirely on the following grounds:
(1 THAT Section 15 of the Societies Act provides for an appeal to this Honourable Court against the decision of the Cabinet Secretary and not a Notice of Motion Application and/or Petition who ought to have heard the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.
(2 THAT the petitioners no longer exist in the eyes of the law as communicated to them, that their certificate had been cancelled vide a letter by the Registrar of Societies dated 1.8.2005, which registrar’s decision has never been appealed against as per Section 15 of the Societies Act.
23. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents further filed a joint Replying Affidavit sworn on 7 th May 2025 by Rev. Paul Ruto Cheboi, the National Organizing Secretary and a trustee of the 1 st Respondent (Gospel of God Church, SOC. 7670), in opposition to the Petitioners’ Notice of Motion and Petition. He raises strong preliminary and legal objections to the Petitioners’ locus standi , asserting that the Petitioners do not legally exist.
24. The deponent points out that Pastor Francis Mucheru claimed to be the legal Secretary General without producing a confirmed list of national office bearers or a valid registration certificate. He highlights that the Registrar of Societies cancelled the 1 st Petitioner’s certificate on 1 st August 2005, which decision was never appealed under Section 15 of the Societies Act.
25. He deposes that in Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011 , Justice C.K. Nzili explicitly ruled on 15 th November 2023, that the Petitioners ceased to exist in law as of 1 st August 2005. That the Petitioners were also criminalized for operating an unregistered church vide Meru Chief Magistrates’ Court Criminal Case No. E252 of 2025 , confirming that they are total strangers to the court and lack legal capacity.
26. It is further contended in deposition that the Petition is premature, unmerited and an abuse of court process for failing to exhaust available statutory remedies. The deponent asserts that the Petitioners failed to pursue an administrative appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within 30 days of the Registrar’s ruling as required by Section 15(b) of the Societies Act , and that neither did they appeal directly under Section 18.
27. He states that Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act strictly bars judicial review before internal appeal mechanisms are exhausted. Additionally, he contends the Petition fails to meet the constitutional standard set in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic and Mumo Matemu , as it lists broad constitutional provisions without providing specific details or evidence of how rights were infringed.
28. Detailing the history of the dispute, the deponent explains that the 1 st Respondent was granted a certificate of exemption from registration No. 1807 in 1968 and has operated worldwide. That in 1985, unprocedural cancellation occurred amid wrangles orchestrated by a Meru splinter group seeking to seize church property. That while the 1 st Respondent’s appeal was pending, this splinter group registered the ‘Glorious Gospel of God Church’ on 7 th July 2004 and amended its name on 22 nd March 2005, to ‘Gospel of God Church International’ to deceptively grab the 1 st Respondent’s assets.
29. He states that following the 1 st Respondent’s formal protest on 20 th June 2005, the Registrar ruled on 1 st August 2005 that the name was unavailable and ordered the Petitioners to revert to their former name. Subsequently, on 11 th November 2009, the Registrar officially reinstated the 1 st Respondent’s exemption.
30. It is pleaded that despite its deregistered status, the splinter group fraudulently grabbed and transferred church land to a third party in 2011, triggering Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011, where the court ultimately affirmed the Petitioners’ non-existence. That when the 1 st Respondent discovered in April 2024 that the Petitioners were still illegally using the revoked name, they lodged complaints with the police and the Registrar.
31. It is stated that although the Registrar issued a directive on 20 th August 2024, acknowledging a violation of Section 11 of the Societies Act and suggesting alternative dispute resolution, the 1 st Respondent appealed the ruling to the Attorney General to demand full cancellation, which appeal is said to remain pending hearing before the Cabinet Secretary/Attorney General.
32. The deponent swears that the Petitioners filed this petition in bad faith to sabotage those ongoing administrative appeal proceedings and urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs to be borne personally by Francis Mucheru Mwangi.
33. The 3 rd and 4 th Respondents (the Registrar of Societies and the Attorney General respectively, filed a joint response through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 8 th September 2025 by Registrar of Societies Teresia Gathagu in which the Registrar states that the core dispute between the 1 st Petitioner and the 1 st Respondent centers on which entity holds the right to use the name ‘Gospel of God Church’. She states that as the official custodian of records, she confirms that the 1 st Petitioner, Gospel of God Church International (SOC 45700), is a duly registered society under the Societies Act.
34. The Registrar further states that official records contain a legally recognized society named "Gospel of God" (SOC 7670) but that there is no society registered under the specific name ‘Gospel of God Church (SOC 7670)’ as claimed by the 1 st Respondent. That according to the filed records and attached exhibits, Gospel of God Church International was issued Certificate of Registration No. 23742 on 22 nd March 2005. In contrast, Gospel of God (SOC 7670) formerly known as African Gospel Church was granted Exemption Certificate No. 1867 on 26 th August 1968.
35. The Registrar affirms that both Gospel of God Church International and Gospel of God were lawfully registered in accordance with procedural requirements. Consequently, both entities hold a legitimate expectation that their registration statuses will remain protected. The Registrar urges the Court not to issue any orders altering the registration status of either society, maintaining that both are operating lawfully within the provisions of the Societies Act.
36. Rebutting the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents’ response, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents filed a further replying affidavit sworn on 20 th October 2025 by Rev. Paul Ruto Cheboi, the National Organizing Secretary and trustee of the 1 st Respondent ("Gospel of God Church"), in which he deposes that the 1 st Respondent is the only legally recognized entity entitled to the church’s identity and its multi-billion shillings property portfolio. He states that the church was exempted from registration under Section 10 of the Societies Act on 20 th August 1968 and has maintained continuous existence ever since.
37. That a 1985 attempt by a splinter faction to take over the leadership failed and although the Registrar purported to cancel the church’s status, the 1 st Respondent appealed under Section 15 of the Societies Act , legally preserving its status as a lawful society pending determination.
38. The deponent directly impugns the 3 rd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit sworn by Teresia Gathungu, labelling its contents as misleading, economical with the truth and devoid of legal backing. The deponent argues that the Registrar committed a fundamental error of law by registering the Petitioners’ splinter group "Glorious Gospel of God Church" and subsequently approving its name change to "Gospel of God Church International" in 2005. This process, it is contended, directly violated Section 11 of the Societies Act , which prohibits registering societies with identical or deceptively similar names.
39. In response to the 3 rd Respondent’s assertion of ‘legitimate expectation’ or lawful standing for the 1 st Petitioner, the deponent contends that a registration which is void ab initio cannot generate legitimate expectations. He states that the Registrar had already formally revoked the Petitioner’s name change on 1 st August 2005 and ordered them to revert to their original name and that because the Petitioners never appealed that 2005 ruling, the Environment and Land Court in Meru ELC No. 114 of 2011 and subsequent administrative rulings, including letters in 2011, 2024 and 2025 confirmed that the 1 st Petitioner ceased to exist in the eyes of the law as of 2 nd August 2005.
40. The deponent strongly criticizes the 3 rd Respondent and accuses her of shifting goalposts and taking an evasive stance. He points out the contradiction in the Registrar’s position and states that the 3 rd Respondent has consistently communicated with and addressed the 1 st Respondent as "Gospel of God Church," yet now claims in its affidavit that the 1 st Respondent does not legally exist.
41. He asserts that having repeatedly recognized the 1 st Respondent and acted upon its complaints over the years, the Registrar is legally estopped from changing its position at the eleventh hour.
42. The deponent rejects the 3 rd Respondent’s recommendation that both societies be allowed to coexist or seek court redress. The deponent argues that by inviting the court to allow both entities to use identical names, the Registrar is asking the Court to blatantly ignore Section 11 of the Societies Act . The deponent accuses the 3 rd Respondent of attempting to cover up its past administrative errors, sabotage the pending appeal and collude with the Petitioners to unlawfully resurrect an entity that has been legally extinct for nearly two decades.
43. Finally, the 1 st Respondent notes that independent law enforcement findings contradict the 3 rd Respondent’s position. That investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), confirmed that the 1 st Petitioner does not exist in law, leading to criminal charges against its purported officials in CMCR. No. E252 of 2025. That because the 1 st Respondent holds prior registration dating back to 1968 and the 3 rd Respondent’s current averments are legally baseless, the 1 st Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
44. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by way of written submissions.
The Petitioners’ Submissions
45. The Petitioners’ written submissions are dated 1 st July 2025 in which Counsel highlights the following issues for determination:
whether the 3 rd and 4 th respondent infringed on the rights of the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners;
What is the procedure for the rescission of a society and the procedure for appealing rescission decision in the year 1985-1987;
What is the procedure for refusal to re-register a society in the year 1985-1987;
What’s the procedure for registration and name change of the 1st petitioner; and the decisions by the 3 rd Respondent after 1987;
What are the implications of the rescission, refusal to register, registration of glorious gospel church of Kenya and the approval of the name change and whether the preliminary objection is merited?
46. The Petitioners invoke Articles 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29(a), 29(c), 35, 37, 39, 40, 47, 50, 73, 165, 258, 259, and 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, alongside the Societies Act (Cap 108) [Act No. 4 of 1968, Act No. 10 of 1997, L.N. 71/2003, Act No. 19 of 2015, L.N. 105/2017] and the Societies Rules [L.N. 62/1968, L.N. 243/1988, L.N. 84/1997, L.N. 71/2003, L.N. 259/2021].
47. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents violated their constitutional rights under Article 25(c) on non-derogable right to fair trial, Article 50(1) on the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, Article 27 on equality and freedom from discrimination and Article 47 on the right to fair administrative action.
48. Emphasizing the principles of judicial independence and impartiality under Articles 10(2)(b), 20(4), and 159 of the Constitution , Counsel for the Petitioners relies on several cases namely- Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR (quoting R v Gough), Attorney-General v. Anyang’ Nyong’o & Others [2007] 1 E.A. 12, Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465, Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd v Lannon and others, Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others [2013] eKLR, and Gachuri v Attorney General & another; Kenya Judges Welfare Association & another (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E0304 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1632 (KLR) to establish that the 3 rd Respondent demonstrated apparent bias and procedural unfairness.
49. Specifically, Counsel argues that the 3 rd Respondent made unilateral administrative decisions, including the 2009 re-registration of Soc. 7670, a 2005 direction requiring name reversion, a non-conclusive ruling on 20 th August 2024 and an 18 th October 2024 decision reversing prior findings upon an improper appeal without serving notice, inviting submissions, or issuing summonses to the Petitioners, in violation of natural justice principles highlighted in Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 others v Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 others, Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others Ex Parte Archdiocese of Nairobi Kenya Registered Trustees (St. Joseph Mukasa Catholic Church Kahawa West) [2018] eKLR, Onyango Oloo vs. Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456, and Ridge vs. Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66.
50. Regarding Sections 4 and 7(2)(a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act (Act No. 35 of 2015), as well as Section 12 thereof, the Petitioners cite Muigana & 16 others v County Government of Nyandarua (Petition E007 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 960 (KLR) referencing Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage and Culture & 3 others [2016] KLR and Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 to argue that administrative decisions must be supported by adequate, intelligible and rational reasons linked to the evidence.
51. They urge that under Section 9 and Section 10 of the Societies Act (Cap 108, 1968), Soc. 7670 it was granted an exemption from registration on 26 th August 1968. However, pursuant to Section 13 of the Societies Act , the Registrar rescinded this exemption on 23 rd August 1985, as formally published in Gazette Notice No. 3835 on 30 th August 1985.
52. It is submitted that following an appeal under Section 15 of the Societies Act, the Minister, 4 th Respondent herein affirmed the rescission on 2 nd October 1985. That subsequently, the Registrar issued a refusal to re-register Soc. 7670 on 24 th February 1987, under Section 11(2) of the Societies Act and the Minister dismissed the subsequent appeal on 21 st April 1987, thereby exhausting all statutory appeal mechanisms and legally extinguishing Soc. 7670 as an existing entity.
53. Counsel details that on 11 th November 1987, the Petitioners’ leadership-initiated steps to register a new entity, leading to the issuance of Certificate of Registration No. 23742 for "Glorious Gospel Church of Kenya" on 7 th July 2004, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Societies Act as amended in 1997. That following an Annual General Meeting resolution on 18 th March 2005, the Registrar approved a change of name to "Gospel of God Church International" (Soc. 45700) on 22 nd March 2005, pursuant to Section 20 of the Societies Act (1997) and Rule 12(2) of the Societies Rules .
54. Counsel for the Petitioners argues that because Soc. 7670 had ceased to exist in 1987, Soc. 45700 was the first entity lawfully registered in time. Drawing analogies from corporate law limitation periods and land registration principles, the Petitioners cite John Blasious Ogati Matundura of Gusii Mwalimu Investment v Attorney General [2016] eKLR , referencing Section 339(6) of the Companies Act, Cap 486 and Section 912 of the Companies Act, No. 17 of 2015 , Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 37 of 2013 [2014] eKLR , Jackson N. Wachuga v Eastern Kitui Stores Limited [2008] eKLR, and Isaiah Nyabuti Onchonga v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd & another [2020] eKLR to assert that the 3 rd Respondent lacked statutory power or jurisdiction to administratively ‘re-register’ or ‘resuscitate’ a defunct society 18 years later in 2009.
55. Addressing non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , Counsel invokes Tukero ole Kina v Attorney General & another [2019] eKLR citing Nelson Andayi Havi vs Law Society of Kenya & 3 Others, Petition No. 607 of 2017 [2018] eKLR and Nyarangi & 3 Others v Attorney General [2008] KLR 688. They argue that the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents subjected the Petitioners to unconstitutional differential treatment by rejecting their lawful administrative application
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E665 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29(A), 29(C), 37, 39, 40, 73, 165, 258, 259 AND 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE SOCIETIES ACT CAP 108 LAWS OF KENYA AND ITS VARIOUS AMENDMENTS, [ACT NO. 4 OF 1968, ACT NO. 10 OF 1997, LEGAL NOTICE 71 OF 2003, ACT NO. 19 OF 2015, LEGAL NOTICE 105 OF 2017]
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE SOCIETIES RULES, ITS VARIATIONS AND AMENDEMENTS [LEGAL NOTICE 62 OF 1968, LEGAL NOTICE 243 OF 1988, LEGAL NOTICE 84 OF 1997, LEGAL NOTICE 71 OF 2003, LEGAL NOTICE 259 OF 2021]
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: RESCISSION, CANCELLATION, RE-REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY ALLEGEDLY REFERRED TO AS GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL OF NAME CHANGE OF SOCIETY NO. GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: DISPUTE ON OWNERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE NAME GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH AND OWNERSHIP OF THE EFFECTS AND ASSETS BELONGING TO GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH
-BETWEEN-
GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH
INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) ……...…….................. 1 ST PETITIONER
TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD
CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) …………. 2 ND PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) ................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD
CHURCH (SOC./7670) ……………………………..…... 2 ND RESPONDENT
REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KENYA ......................... 3 RD RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL .................................................. 4 TH RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
1. The Petition dated 29 th November 2024 describes the parties as follows:
2. The 1 st Petitioner herein GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700) is a society duly registered as such under the Societies Act Cap, Laws of Kenya.
3. The 2 nd Petitioner herein TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL (SOC./45700 is the registered trustees of the 1 st Petitioner.
4. The 1 st Respondent GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) is a society said to be registered under the Societies Act, Laws of Kenya.
5. The 2 nd Respondent TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH (SOC./7670) are the trustees of the 1 st Respondent herein.
6. The 3 rd Respondent REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES KENYA herein is the Registrar of Societies responsible for maintenance and registration of the record of societies in Kenya.
7. The 4 th Respondent herein is the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya duly authorized representative of the government as set out under Article 156 of the Constitution.
8. The Petition involves a legal dispute between the Gospel of God Church International (SOC./45700) and its registered trustees against Gospel of God Church (SOC./7670), its trustees, the Registrar of Societies, and the Attorney General concerning the lawful registration, ownership and exclusive right to use the name "Gospel of God Church," alongside the entitlement to property and assets acquired under that identity.
9. The factual background is that The Gospel of God Church (SOC. 7670) was introduced in Kenya in 1968 and was initially exempted from registration. Over the years, it acquired property and established a strong presence, but leadership disputes and government intervention in 1985 led to the expulsion of non-Kenyan leaders. Local members elected new officials in July 1985, but shortly afterward, the Registrar rescinded the church’s exemption, effectively deregistering it. Attempts by the local leadership to re-register or appeal were consistently rejected between 1985 and 1987, leaving the society legally non-existent.
10. The Petitioners aver that they were originally registered as, “Glorious Gospel of God Church of Kenya” under registration No. SOC. 45700 in 2004 and later renamed “Gospel of God Church International.” That this entity acquired assets and functioned lawfully until 2009, when the Registrar reinstated the previously deregistered SOC. 7670 without involving the 1985 local leadership. This reinstatement created conflicts over the rightful use of the church’s name, culminating in directives in 2024 requiring SOC. 45700 to revert to its former name or face cancellation. The Petitioners argue that these directives violate their constitutional rights, including fair administrative action, property rights, equality, and legitimate expectation, and they seek judicial review orders, declarations of exclusive rights to the name, and compensation for damages.
The Petition
11. The Petition is dated 29 th November 2024 and seeks the following Declarations and Orders:-
(a) A declaration that the Petitioners herein have the sole and exclusive rights to use, apply and deploy the use of the name Gospel of God church;
(b) A mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued stopping the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent herein from using, applying and deploying the use of the name Gospel of God church;
(c) The Honourable Court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court to quash the decisions and Rulings by the 3 rd Respondent issued on 20 th August 2024 and 18 th October 2024;
(d) The Honourable court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review order of Prohibition to prohibit the Respondents or any of their agents, officers, or any person acting on behalf of the Respondents from implementing the decisions issued on 18 th October 2024;
(e) The Honourable court be pleased and does hereby issue a judicial review order of an order of mandamus directing the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents herein to comply with their own rulings and decisions as communicated on 2 nd October 1985, 24 th February 1987, 21 st April 1987 dismissing and or denying the appeal filed for and on behalf of leadership of Gospel of God church SOC 7670 elected on 21 st July 1985;
(f) A declaration that the Petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair trial and fair hearing as guaranteed by Articles 25 (c) and 50 (1) & (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 have been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(g) A declaration that the Petitioner’s constitutional right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed by Article 27 (1), (2), (3) & (5) of the constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(h) A declaration that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to Access to Information as guaranteed by Article 35 (1) (b) of the constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(i) A declaration that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to fair administrative action as guaranteed by Article 47(1) & (2) of the Constitution has been violated by the Respondents individually, jointly and severally;
(j) A declaration that the Petitioners’ right to legitimate expectation has been infringed by the Respondent institutions;
(k) An order for full compensation for General and Aggravated damages;
(l) Costs of this Petition;
(m) Interest on (f) and (g) above (sic)
(n) Any other or further relief as this Honourable court may deem fit to grant
12. The Petition is further supported by the sworn affidavit of Francis Mucheru Mwangi, the General Secretary of Gospel of God Church International (SOC. 45700), dated evenly with the Petition. The deponent outlines the history of the original church (SOC. 7670), which was introduced in Kenya in 1968, exempted from registration on 26 th August 1968 and subsequently acquired substantial land and property in Nairobi and registered a trust deed.
13. The deponent details how government interventions in 1984 and 1985 resulted in the ordered departure and deportation of the church’s foreign leadership. Following these developments, Kenyan church members conducted an emergency election on 21 st July 1985, electing local leadership. However, on 23 rd August 1985, the Assistant Registrar of Societies rescinded the church’s exemption from registration under Section 13 of the Societies Act , a decision published via Gazette Notice No. 3835 on 30 th August 1985.
14. He swears that subsequent efforts and formal appeals between October 1985 and April 1987 by the elected Kenyan leadership to re-register the society were repeatedly dismissed by both the Registrar and the Attorney General, who explicitly noted that the entity no longer existed in law.
15. It is stated that to maintain legal operations, the same local leadership registered “Glorious Gospel of God Church of Kenya” (SOC. 45700) on 7 th July 2004 and subsequently secured approval from the Registrar on 22 nd March 2005, to change the name to “Gospel of God Church International”.
16. The deponent notes that the church created new registered trusts and continued acquiring property under this name. Despite previous final rejections, on 11 th November 2009, the Registrar reinstated the deregistered SOC. 7670 without consulting the 1985 elected leadership or issuing a gazette notice.
17. It is deposed that this generated conflicting regulatory directives, culminating in decisions on 20 th August 2024 and 18 th October 2024, where the Registrar ordered SOC. 45700 to revert to “Glorious Gospel of God Church” within 30 days or face cancellation.
18. The deponent asserts that the Registrar’s actions and directives violate the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to a fair trial and fair hearing under Articles 25 and 50, equality and non-discrimination under Article 27, access to information under Article 35 , protection of property rights over their registered name under Article 40 , and fair administrative action under Article 47 .
19. The deponent avers that the Registrar breached the Petitioners’ legitimate expectation, that SOC. 7670 had ceased to exist in law and that SOC. 45700 held the exclusive right to the name. It is their prayer that the Court should grant the prayers in the Petition to prevent substantial injustice.
20. Simultaneous with the Petition, the Petitioners also filed a Notice of Motion Application, seeking urgent court orders to certify the matter as urgent and issue temporary injunctions and conservatory orders. Specifically, the Petitioners are seeking to stay an administrative decision issued on 18 th October 2024, by the Registrar of Societies and communicated on 8 th November 2024 and to stop the Registrar of Societies and the Attorney General from deregistering, cancelling, or rescinding the 1 st Petitioner’s registration or forcing them to revert to their former name, ‘Glorious Gospel of God Church’, pending the hearing and determination of the main Petition.
Responses
21. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, Grounds of Opposition and a Replying Affidavit all in opposition to the petition and the Notice of motion.The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ Grounds of Opposition are dated 4 th December 2024 and seek to have the Petition and Motion dismissed on the following grounds:
(1 THAT the instant application together with the petition filed herein is not only misconceived and bad in law but also incompetent as it has failed to set out with reasonable degree of precision that of which the Petitioners complains, provisions said to have been infringed or violated and the manner in which they are alleged to have been infringed or violated as was enunciated in the celebrated case of Anarita Karimi - Versus-Republic (No.1) (1979 1 KLR 154 and Mumo Matemu - Versus-Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Civil Appeal No.290 of 2012(2013), simply put, the petition filed herein fails the specificity test.
(2 THAT the petitioners have not exhausted other remedies as provided by the Societies Act. Hence, the Notice of Motion Application and Petition herein is premature.
(3 THAT Section 15 of the Societies Act provides for an appeal to this Honourable Court against the decision of the Cabinet Secretary and not a Notice of Motion Application and/or Petition who ought to have heard the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.
(4 THAT the petitioners no longer exist in the eyes of the law as communicated to them, that their certificate had been cancelled vide a letter by the Registrar of Societies dated 1.8.2005, which registrar’s decision has never been appealed against as per Section 15 of the Societies Act.
(5 THAT the instant Notice of Motion application and petition herein amounts to an abuse of the court process as it fails to appreciate that matters averred by the applicants largely forms what should be their grounds of appeal to the cabinet secretary against the Registrar’s decision. Thus, the Notice application and Petition should be dismissed with costs.
22. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19 th February 2025 seeking to have the Noice of Motion and Petition struck out entirely on the following grounds:
(1 THAT Section 15 of the Societies Act provides for an appeal to this Honourable Court against the decision of the Cabinet Secretary and not a Notice of Motion Application and/or Petition who ought to have heard the appeal against the Registrar’s decision.
(2 THAT the petitioners no longer exist in the eyes of the law as communicated to them, that their certificate had been cancelled vide a letter by the Registrar of Societies dated 1.8.2005, which registrar’s decision has never been appealed against as per Section 15 of the Societies Act.
23. The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents further filed a joint Replying Affidavit sworn on 7 th May 2025 by Rev. Paul Ruto Cheboi, the National Organizing Secretary and a trustee of the 1 st Respondent (Gospel of God Church, SOC. 7670), in opposition to the Petitioners’ Notice of Motion and Petition. He raises strong preliminary and legal objections to the Petitioners’ locus standi , asserting that the Petitioners do not legally exist.
24. The deponent points out that Pastor Francis Mucheru claimed to be the legal Secretary General without producing a confirmed list of national office bearers or a valid registration certificate. He highlights that the Registrar of Societies cancelled the 1 st Petitioner’s certificate on 1 st August 2005, which decision was never appealed under Section 15 of the Societies Act.
25. He deposes that in Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011 , Justice C.K. Nzili explicitly ruled on 15 th November 2023, that the Petitioners ceased to exist in law as of 1 st August 2005. That the Petitioners were also criminalized for operating an unregistered church vide Meru Chief Magistrates’ Court Criminal Case No. E252 of 2025 , confirming that they are total strangers to the court and lack legal capacity.
26. It is further contended in deposition that the Petition is premature, unmerited and an abuse of court process for failing to exhaust available statutory remedies. The deponent asserts that the Petitioners failed to pursue an administrative appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within 30 days of the Registrar’s ruling as required by Section 15(b) of the Societies Act , and that neither did they appeal directly under Section 18.
27. He states that Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act strictly bars judicial review before internal appeal mechanisms are exhausted. Additionally, he contends the Petition fails to meet the constitutional standard set in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic and Mumo Matemu , as it lists broad constitutional provisions without providing specific details or evidence of how rights were infringed.
28. Detailing the history of the dispute, the deponent explains that the 1 st Respondent was granted a certificate of exemption from registration No. 1807 in 1968 and has operated worldwide. That in 1985, unprocedural cancellation occurred amid wrangles orchestrated by a Meru splinter group seeking to seize church property. That while the 1 st Respondent’s appeal was pending, this splinter group registered the ‘Glorious Gospel of God Church’ on 7 th July 2004 and amended its name on 22 nd March 2005, to ‘Gospel of God Church International’ to deceptively grab the 1 st Respondent’s assets.
29. He states that following the 1 st Respondent’s formal protest on 20 th June 2005, the Registrar ruled on 1 st August 2005 that the name was unavailable and ordered the Petitioners to revert to their former name. Subsequently, on 11 th November 2009, the Registrar officially reinstated the 1 st Respondent’s exemption.
30. It is pleaded that despite its deregistered status, the splinter group fraudulently grabbed and transferred church land to a third party in 2011, triggering Meru ELC Case No. 114 of 2011, where the court ultimately affirmed the Petitioners’ non-existence. That when the 1 st Respondent discovered in April 2024 that the Petitioners were still illegally using the revoked name, they lodged complaints with the police and the Registrar.
31. It is stated that although the Registrar issued a directive on 20 th August 2024, acknowledging a violation of Section 11 of the Societies Act and suggesting alternative dispute resolution, the 1 st Respondent appealed the ruling to the Attorney General to demand full cancellation, which appeal is said to remain pending hearing before the Cabinet Secretary/Attorney General.
32. The deponent swears that the Petitioners filed this petition in bad faith to sabotage those ongoing administrative appeal proceedings and urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs to be borne personally by Francis Mucheru Mwangi.
33. The 3 rd and 4 th Respondents (the Registrar of Societies and the Attorney General respectively, filed a joint response through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 8 th September 2025 by Registrar of Societies Teresia Gathagu in which the Registrar states that the core dispute between the 1 st Petitioner and the 1 st Respondent centers on which entity holds the right to use the name ‘Gospel of God Church’. She states that as the official custodian of records, she confirms that the 1 st Petitioner, Gospel of God Church International (SOC 45700), is a duly registered society under the Societies Act.
34. The Registrar further states that official records contain a legally recognized society named "Gospel of God" (SOC 7670) but that there is no society registered under the specific name ‘Gospel of God Church (SOC 7670)’ as claimed by the 1 st Respondent. That according to the filed records and attached exhibits, Gospel of God Church International was issued Certificate of Registration No. 23742 on 22 nd March 2005. In contrast, Gospel of God (SOC 7670) formerly known as African Gospel Church was granted Exemption Certificate No. 1867 on 26 th August 1968.
35. The Registrar affirms that both Gospel of God Church International and Gospel of God were lawfully registered in accordance with procedural requirements. Consequently, both entities hold a legitimate expectation that their registration statuses will remain protected. The Registrar urges the Court not to issue any orders altering the registration status of either society, maintaining that both are operating lawfully within the provisions of the Societies Act.
36. Rebutting the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents’ response, the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents filed a further replying affidavit sworn on 20 th October 2025 by Rev. Paul Ruto Cheboi, the National Organizing Secretary and trustee of the 1 st Respondent ("Gospel of God Church"), in which he deposes that the 1 st Respondent is the only legally recognized entity entitled to the church’s identity and its multi-billion shillings property portfolio. He states that the church was exempted from registration under Section 10 of the Societies Act on 20 th August 1968 and has maintained continuous existence ever since.
37. That a 1985 attempt by a splinter faction to take over the leadership failed and although the Registrar purported to cancel the church’s status, the 1 st Respondent appealed under Section 15 of the Societies Act , legally preserving its status as a lawful society pending determination.
38. The deponent directly impugns the 3 rd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit sworn by Teresia Gathungu, labelling its contents as misleading, economical with the truth and devoid of legal backing. The deponent argues that the Registrar committed a fundamental error of law by registering the Petitioners’ splinter group "Glorious Gospel of God Church" and subsequently approving its name change to "Gospel of God Church International" in 2005. This process, it is contended, directly violated Section 11 of the Societies Act , which prohibits registering societies with identical or deceptively similar names.
39. In response to the 3 rd Respondent’s assertion of ‘legitimate expectation’ or lawful standing for the 1 st Petitioner, the deponent contends that a registration which is void ab initio cannot generate legitimate expectations. He states that the Registrar had already formally revoked the Petitioner’s name change on 1 st August 2005 and ordered them to revert to their original name and that because the Petitioners never appealed that 2005 ruling, the Environment and Land Court in Meru ELC No. 114 of 2011 and subsequent administrative rulings, including letters in 2011, 2024 and 2025 confirmed that the 1 st Petitioner ceased to exist in the eyes of the law as of 2 nd August 2005.
40. The deponent strongly criticizes the 3 rd Respondent and accuses her of shifting goalposts and taking an evasive stance. He points out the contradiction in the Registrar’s position and states that the 3 rd Respondent has consistently communicated with and addressed the 1 st Respondent as "Gospel of God Church," yet now claims in its affidavit that the 1 st Respondent does not legally exist.
41. He asserts that having repeatedly recognized the 1 st Respondent and acted upon its complaints over the years, the Registrar is legally estopped from changing its position at the eleventh hour.
42. The deponent rejects the 3 rd Respondent’s recommendation that both societies be allowed to coexist or seek court redress. The deponent argues that by inviting the court to allow both entities to use identical names, the Registrar is asking the Court to blatantly ignore Section 11 of the Societies Act . The deponent accuses the 3 rd Respondent of attempting to cover up its past administrative errors, sabotage the pending appeal and collude with the Petitioners to unlawfully resurrect an entity that has been legally extinct for nearly two decades.
43. Finally, the 1 st Respondent notes that independent law enforcement findings contradict the 3 rd Respondent’s position. That investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), confirmed that the 1 st Petitioner does not exist in law, leading to criminal charges against its purported officials in CMCR. No. E252 of 2025. That because the 1 st Respondent holds prior registration dating back to 1968 and the 3 rd Respondent’s current averments are legally baseless, the 1 st Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs.
44. The parties took directions to canvass the Petition by way of written submissions.
The Petitioners’ Submissions
45. The Petitioners’ written submissions are dated 1 st July 2025 in which Counsel highlights the following issues for determination:
whether the 3 rd and 4 th respondent infringed on the rights of the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners;
What is the procedure for the rescission of a society and the procedure for appealing rescission decision in the year 1985-1987;
What is the procedure for refusal to re-register a society in the year 1985-1987;
What’s the procedure for registration and name change of the 1st petitioner; and the decisions by the 3 rd Respondent after 1987;
What are the implications of the rescission, refusal to register, registration of glorious gospel church of Kenya and the approval of the name change and whether the preliminary objection is merited?
46. The Petitioners invoke Articles 1, 2, 3, 4(2), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29(a), 29(c), 35, 37, 39, 40, 47, 50, 73, 165, 258, 259, and 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, alongside the Societies Act (Cap 108) [Act No. 4 of 1968, Act No. 10 of 1997, L.N. 71/2003, Act No. 19 of 2015, L.N. 105/2017] and the Societies Rules [L.N. 62/1968, L.N. 243/1988, L.N. 84/1997, L.N. 71/2003, L.N. 259/2021].
47. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents violated their constitutional rights under Article 25(c) on non-derogable right to fair trial, Article 50(1) on the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, Article 27 on equality and freedom from discrimination and Article 47 on the right to fair administrative action.
48. Emphasizing the principles of judicial independence and impartiality under Articles 10(2)(b), 20(4), and 159 of the Constitution , Counsel for the Petitioners relies on several cases namely- Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei & another [2014] eKLR (quoting R v Gough), Attorney-General v. Anyang’ Nyong’o & Others [2007] 1 E.A. 12, Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465, Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd v Lannon and others, Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others [2013] eKLR, and Gachuri v Attorney General & another; Kenya Judges Welfare Association & another (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E0304 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1632 (KLR) to establish that the 3 rd Respondent demonstrated apparent bias and procedural unfairness.
49. Specifically, Counsel argues that the 3 rd Respondent made unilateral administrative decisions, including the 2009 re-registration of Soc. 7670, a 2005 direction requiring name reversion, a non-conclusive ruling on 20 th August 2024 and an 18 th October 2024 decision reversing prior findings upon an improper appeal without serving notice, inviting submissions, or issuing summonses to the Petitioners, in violation of natural justice principles highlighted in Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 others v Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 others, Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others Ex Parte Archdiocese of Nairobi Kenya Registered Trustees (St. Joseph Mukasa Catholic Church Kahawa West) [2018] eKLR, Onyango Oloo vs. Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456, and Ridge vs. Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66.
50. Regarding Sections 4 and 7(2)(a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act (Act No. 35 of 2015), as well as Section 12 thereof, the Petitioners cite Muigana & 16 others v County Government of Nyandarua (Petition E007 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 960 (KLR) referencing Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage and Culture & 3 others [2016] KLR and Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 to argue that administrative decisions must be supported by adequate, intelligible and rational reasons linked to the evidence.
51. They urge that under Section 9 and Section 10 of the Societies Act (Cap 108, 1968), Soc. 7670 it was granted an exemption from registration on 26 th August 1968. However, pursuant to Section 13 of the Societies Act , the Registrar rescinded this exemption on 23 rd August 1985, as formally published in Gazette Notice No. 3835 on 30 th August 1985.
52. It is submitted that following an appeal under Section 15 of the Societies Act, the Minister, 4 th Respondent herein affirmed the rescission on 2 nd October 1985. That subsequently, the Registrar issued a refusal to re-register Soc. 7670 on 24 th February 1987, under Section 11(2) of the Societies Act and the Minister dismissed the subsequent appeal on 21 st April 1987, thereby exhausting all statutory appeal mechanisms and legally extinguishing Soc. 7670 as an existing entity.
53. Counsel details that on 11 th November 1987, the Petitioners’ leadership-initiated steps to register a new entity, leading to the issuance of Certificate of Registration No. 23742 for "Glorious Gospel Church of Kenya" on 7 th July 2004, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Societies Act as amended in 1997. That following an Annual General Meeting resolution on 18 th March 2005, the Registrar approved a change of name to "Gospel of God Church International" (Soc. 45700) on 22 nd March 2005, pursuant to Section 20 of the Societies Act (1997) and Rule 12(2) of the Societies Rules .
54. Counsel for the Petitioners argues that because Soc. 7670 had ceased to exist in 1987, Soc. 45700 was the first entity lawfully registered in time. Drawing analogies from corporate law limitation periods and land registration principles, the Petitioners cite John Blasious Ogati Matundura of Gusii Mwalimu Investment v Attorney General [2016] eKLR , referencing Section 339(6) of the Companies Act, Cap 486 and Section 912 of the Companies Act, No. 17 of 2015 , Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 37 of 2013 [2014] eKLR , Jackson N. Wachuga v Eastern Kitui Stores Limited [2008] eKLR, and Isaiah Nyabuti Onchonga v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd & another [2020] eKLR to assert that the 3 rd Respondent lacked statutory power or jurisdiction to administratively ‘re-register’ or ‘resuscitate’ a defunct society 18 years later in 2009.
55. Addressing non-discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , Counsel invokes Tukero ole Kina v Attorney General & another [2019] eKLR citing Nelson Andayi Havi vs Law Society of Kenya & 3 Others, Petition No. 607 of 2017 [2018] eKLR and Nyarangi & 3 Others v Attorney General [2008] KLR 688. They argue that the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents subjected the Petitioners to unconstitutional differential treatment by rejecting their lawful administrative application
[...truncated]