Верховный суд Кении отказал в возобновлении спора о руководстве церковью PMCA

A group of pastors and church officials who wanted an arbitrator to reopen a dispute over the leadership of Peace and Mercy Church of Africa (PMCA) has suffered a setback after the High Court declined to revive the matter. High Court Judge Reuben Nyakundi, sitting in Eldoret, ruled that the court could not send the dispute back to the arbitrator because the time allowed for seeking clarification or correction had already expired. In the August 31 2026 ruling, the judge said the church dispute had gone through arbitration, the arbitrator had delivered his decision, and the High Court had adopted it. He therefore found that the court had completed its role in the matter. The petition was filed by Robert Kiplimo Yego and nine others, including pastors, a trustee and church members. They had challenged actions surrounding the amended Constitution of PMCA that was lodged with the Registrar of Societies on August 18, 2025 and approved on September 15, 2025. The petitioners argued that the people who lodged the amended Constitution did not have the authority to do so. They later asked the High Court to stop implementation of the amended Constitution while seeking clarification or interpretation of an earlier arbitration outcome. But the church officials opposed the application, arguing that the matter had already been settled. The dispute had been referred to arbitration by an order of the High Court on February 16, 2023. It was heard by Wilson K Kalya, who acted as the sole arbitrator and was registered as Arbitral Dispute No 2 of 2023 after a statement of claim was filed on December 20, 2023. Mr Kalya delivered his award on June 16, 2025, and the petitioners subsequently asked the High Court to adopt the award. On August 8, 2025, the court adopted it. It was after this that the petitioners returned to court, complaining about the amended church Constitution. Justice Nyakundi said the law gives parties only a short period to ask an arbitrator to correct certain errors or clarify a specific part of an award. That period had expired by the time the petitioners filed their application on January 21, 2026. The judge noted that more than seven months had passed since the award was delivered. “No request of any kind was ever made to the arbitrator,” Justice Nyakundi said. He added that the High Court had no power to revive the arbitrator's mandate after the statutory period had expired. The judge also rejected the petitioners' attempt to rely on a provision that allows a court, in certain circumstances, to allow an arbitrator to address an award. Read: Women in the pulpit He said that provision applies only where there is a case seeking to have an award set aside and noted that there was no such case before him. The judge further said the law does not provide for a general “review” of an arbitration award. He said parties who choose arbitration agree to a process whose decisions are intended to be final, subject only to the limited avenues provided by law. The petitioners had also complained that PMCA had been sued in a personal capacity instead of through its trustees or officials. They claimed that the church's official positions were vacant at the relevant time and that those who lodged the amended Constitution were therefore not recognised officials. Justice Nyakundi said that the complaint could not be used to reopen the arbitration through the application before him. He observed that the petitioners' real grievance appeared to concern the Registrar of Societies' decision to register the amended Constitution. The Registrar was not a party to the case and had not been allowed to respond, the judge said. He therefore pointed out that any challenge to the Registrar's action would have to be brought through the appropriate process under the Societies Act or the rules governing administrative decisions. “I express no view whatever on the merits of any such challenge,” he said. The judge also rejected a request to suspend implementation of the amended Constitution. He said the request depended on the petitioners first obtaining an order to have the arbitration award reviewed or clarified. Since that main request could not be granted, the stay request also fell. Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.