Former Methodist Church in Kenya Presiding Bishop Joseph Ntombura.
Former Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church in Kenya, The Reverend Joseph Ntombura, has failed in his bid in court to block the disposal of the church's multi-billion shilling properties.
The ruling by the Appeals Court in Nairobi paves the way for the sale of the assets valued at over Sh500 billion situated across the country, including Nairobi's upmarket Lavington and Kileleshwa areas, Methodist Resort Centre, KEMU Campus and KEMU hub.
For over five years, the church has been marred by internal wrangles and court disputes involving claims of maladministration, abuse of office, financial impropriety and irregular disposal of the assets.
The Reverend Ntombura, together with the church trustees, wanted the Court of Appeal to issue orders restraining 13 members of the church from intermeddling with the affairs of the institution, harassing staff, disposing of property, drawing funds, incurring expenditure or in any manner appropriating the assets of the church.
The 13 church members targeted by the missed orders included the current presiding Bishop Isaiah Deye, former presiding Bishop Dr Stephen Kanyarau, Dr Misheck Kanake, Geoffrey Kinoti Kathurima and Dr Gladys Mwiti, among others.
Excommunication
The Reverend Ntombura applied for the orders in June 2023 after the High Court in Milimani Nairobi stopped the excommunication and defrocking of nine church leaders, including Rev Deye, who were challenging his leadership and his continued stay in the office of the Chief Pastor.
The High Court had also barred him from performing the duties and functions of the office, pending the hearing and determination of the leadership dispute.
The Reverend Ntombura wanted the Appeals Court to issue interim orders until his appeal against the High Court decision is determined.
But a bench comprising Justices Hellen Omondi, Abida Ali-Aroni and Grace Ngenye-Macharia ruled that the intended grounds of appeal raised no arguable issues to warrant the issuance of temporary orders.
The judges further observed that from the pleadings before the court, there was no leadership vacuum, as the church had been operating under an acting presiding bishop, Isaiah Deye, from April 2023.
The Deye-led team told the court that the functions and business of the church were running in normal mode and that Rev Deye had embarked on the task of healing and reconciling the fractured church faithful.
"Rev Ntombura and the trustees have not demonstrated how having another leader step in to promote reconciliation and steer the church will lead to the members suffering any loss, whether spiritual, physical or financial. We find as a fact that there is nothing to preserve," said the judges in their March 7 decision.
Irreversible consequence
"It is our finding that declining the reliefs sought will not result in any irreversible consequence or one that would likely be reversed after considerable hardship or expense to be prejudicial to the applicants," they stated.
The judges also noted that at the High Court Rev Ntombura withdrew a petition he had filed seeking protection orders against intermeddling of the church affairs. A counterclaim filed by the Rev Deye-led respondents seeking his removal from office as his term had expired was left existing in court.
"Once the suit was withdrawn, then the statement of defence was rendered moot as there was nothing to defend, but the counterclaim remained alive. We take note that the counterclaim was a separate cause of action which sought a mandatory injunction to remove The Reverend Ntombura from office, as his term had expired. This court detects some frivolity in the intended grounds of appeal as the applicants withdrew their suit," said the appeals court in its ruling.
In his court papers, The Reverend Ntombura expressed apprehension that the assets belonging to the church were at risk of adverse or illegal alienation.
The legal dispute started in August 2022 following attempts by delegates in an Annual Conference to extend Rev Ntombura's term as presiding Bishop. Those opposed to him said the extension was irregular.
They said that The Reverend Ntombura, having already served two terms pursuant to the Church’s Standing Orders, was illegally in office and without authority to convene the annual conference.
They also said the conference was tainted with irregularities, illegalities, procedural malpractices, manipulation of delegates, impartiality and opacity and was null and void from the beginning.
