Juddy Wairimu Mirango v Non-Governmental Organization Coordination Board & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamwea
Judgment Date
October 16, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the key highlights and implications of the Juddy Wairimu Mirango v Non-Governmental Organization Coordination Board [2020] eKLR case. Discover insights into legal interpretations and outcomes in this significant ruling.

Case Brief: Juddy Wairimu Mirango v Non-Governmental Organization Coordination Board & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Juddy Wairimu Mirango v. Non-Governmental Organization Coordination Board & Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya
- Case Number: Judicial Review Application No. 58 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 16th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamwea
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Whether the decision by the Non-Governmental Organization Coordination Board (1st Respondent) to appoint a caretaker committee for the Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (2nd Respondent) was lawful.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the application given the arguments regarding the exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Applicant, Juddy Wairimu Mirango, is a life member of the 2nd Respondent, the Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya. On 19th February 2020, she learned that the 1st Respondent had appointed a caretaker committee to oversee the 2nd Respondent's affairs, a move she contended was irregular and unauthorized by the 2nd Respondent's constitution. The constitution mandates that office-bearers be elected from among the members and that they serve fixed terms. The Applicant argued that the caretaker committee's appointment violated her rights and those of other members, as it was made without consultation and in secrecy.

4. Procedural History:
The Applicant filed a Chamber Summons Application on 27th February 2020, seeking orders of Certiorari and Prohibition against the Respondents. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed replying affidavits and a Preliminary Objection, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction due to the need to exhaust alternative remedies under the Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Act. The court directed that the Preliminary Objection be heard first, leading to a ruling on the objection.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Act, No. 19 of 1990, and the Fair Administrative Action Act, which emphasize the need for exhaustion of internal remedies before court intervention.
- Case Law: The court referenced prior decisions, including *Speaker of National Assembly v. Karume* and *Geoffrey Muthinja Kabiru & Others v. Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others*, which highlight the necessity of exhausting available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.
- Application: The court found that the 2nd Respondent's objection regarding jurisdiction was not valid. The court determined that the Applicant's challenge was based on the appointment made by the 1st Respondent, which fell within the court's jurisdiction under Articles 47 and 165(6) of the Constitution. The court concluded that the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms cited by the 2nd Respondent were not applicable to the case at hand.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the Applicant's application was properly before it and dismissed the 2nd Respondent's Preliminary Objection. The court granted the Applicant leave to seek orders to quash the 1st Respondent's decision to appoint the caretaker committee and to prohibit any interference with the 2nd Respondent's constitution.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the Applicant, allowing her to proceed with her application against the decision of the Non-Governmental Organization Coordination Board. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to organizational constitutions and the necessity of judicial review in cases where administrative actions may infringe upon the rights of individuals and members within an organization. The case highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that proper procedures are followed in governance matters within non-governmental organizations.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Juddy-Wairimu-Mirango-v-Non-Governmental-Organization-Coordination-Board--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2362_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries