Agnes Mutete v James Mutiso & Konza Ranching Co-Operative Society [2021] KECPT 564 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.65  OF 2013

AGNES MUTETE..............................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

JAMES  MUTISO...................................................................1ST  RESPONDENT

KONZA  RANCHING  CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETY........2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

The Claimant  has moved  this Tribunal  vide an amended  statement  of claim dated  24. 4.2013 seeking  for the following  reliefs:

1.  A revocation  of the illegal  transfer  from the  1st Defendant and the same be registered  in the name of the plaintiff;

2.  A declaration  that the plaintiff  is entitled to all the benefits, interest  and dividends that have accrued  to the  said share  from the  date of the illegal  transfer to date;

3.  The Defendant  to transfer  to the plaintiff  any such benefits, interest, movable  and  immovable  dividends that have accrued  to the said share; and

4.   Costs and interests

In support  of the above reliefs, the Claimant  field her list and bundle  of documents  dated 22. 2.2013 and a witness  statement  of  even date (22. 2.2012). She further filed her supplementary witness statement dated 4. 8.2016.

The 1st  Respondent  has opposed  the claim  by filing  an amended  Response on 13. 5.2013. Further, he has filed the following documents:

a. 1st Respondent’s initial  set of list  and bundle  of documents  dated 13. 5.2013;

b. 1st Respondent’s further  list of  witnesses dated  22. 5.2017;

c. 1st Respondents further list of documents  dated  22. 5.2017.

The  2nd  Respondent  has opposed  the  claim by  filing an amended  statement  of response dated  28. 5.2013.

Directions  on  disposal  of the claim

Noting  the age of the matter and also the age of the Claimant, we  directed, on  2. 9.2020 that the claim be canvassed by way of written submissions. In doing  so, we  gave the following  specific  directions.

a. That all  the witness  statements  be deemed  as the evidence  of the parties; and

b. That all  the documents  on record  be deemed  as produced  as exhibits.

Pursuant  to these directions,  parties  filed their respective  written  submissions  as follows:

a. Claimant                     16. 9.2020

b. 1st Respondent            26. 9.2020

c. 2nd Respondent          2. 11. 2020

Claimant’s case

It is  the Claimant’s case that  at all material  times  to the claim,  she was  the owner  of share No. 1110 in the  Respondent.  That sometimes  in 1981,  she sold  plot NO.  1365  to the  1st Respondent. That  whilst doing so, she retained  her membership and shares  in the 2nd Respondent.

That sometimes  in the year;  2012, she  discovered  that the 1st  Respondent  had illegally  and fraudulently  transferred the said shares to  his name.  That this was done without her  knowledge  and participation.

That  upon  investigation  she  established  that the documents  used to facilitate the alleged  transfer were forgeries. That the 1st  Respondent  perpetuated the said forgery.

CW – 2, Danson  Kilonzo Mulinge is the  son for the Claimant. He states in his witness  statement  dated  4. 8.2016 that  the Claimant  has been a member of the 2nd Respondent  since the year  1964. He confirmed  that the  Claimant  sold plot No. 1365 to the  1st  Respondent  but retained  her membership and shares  in the  2nd  Respondent.

That sometimes  in the year,  2012,  the Claimant  discovered  that the  1st  Respondent  had illegally  and fraudulently  transferred  the said share  to his name.  that  he knows that the  Claimant  could not have authored  any letter  and  appended her signature since  she is illiterate.

1st  Respondents Case

The 1st Respondent  has opposed  the claim  by filing  the following  witness  statements:

a. 1st Respondent’s  witness  statement  dated 13. 5.2013;

b. Witness  statement  of  James  Mulei  Mulinge dated  22. 5.2017.

vide his  statement,  the  1st Respondent  has denied  the accusations leveled  against him on account of  the fact that he  jointly  bought  the plot and the  Claimant’s shares  in 1980.  That before  doing so,  he obtained consent  from the Claimant and her family. That he also obtained  concurrence of the 2nd Respondent  and the then area  chief.  That once  he took over the Claimant’s  membership, he enjoyed  it  uninterrupted  for a period  of  32  years.

Vide his testimony, RW-2,    James  Mula Mulinge stated  that he is the former  Assistant  Chief  of Momaudu Sub-Location  of Labwa  Location.  That  he was appointed  to the  position  in the year,  1966  and retired  in the year  1990.

That he  remembers  on 6. 11. 1980, one  Mr. Mulinge went to his  office accompanied  by the 1st  Respondent. That  after exchanging  pleasantries, they  informed him  that  Mr. Mulinge’s wifeAgnes Mutete, had a share with  the 2nd Respondent  and that  she desired to sell it  to the 1st Respondent. That  in the discussion, he realized that the  1st Respondent and  Mr.  Mulinge had  not  taken the  Claimant  to the office.  That it was a requirement  then that  any person who  wished  to  sell land had to obtain a consent  from the area Sub-chief.

That on  6. 11. 1980, he directed  the  1st  Respondent  and the  Claimant’s husband  to accompany her to his office.

That on 14. 11. 1980, the Claimant,  her husband  and the 1st Respondent  went to his office again.  That on the said date, the Claimant  confirmed that  she intended  to sell her  plot  and share to the  1st Respondent  and that she needed  his authority. That upon his  satisfaction  that the Claimant  was the legitimate owner  of the plot and the share, he wrote  a letter of authority  to transfer  the share and  the  plot to  1st  Respondent. That  the Claimant  signed the letter  of  authority  in his presence  by affixing her right thumb  print. That the said letter  of authority  is dated 14. 11. 1980.

2nd  Respondent’s case

The  2nd  Respondent  confirms  that the  Claimant  was its member and owner  of share No.  1110. That she subsequently requested  to   transfer  her share  to the 1st  Respondent  in accordance  with the sale agreement between  herself and the 1st  Respondent.

Issues  for determination

This claim  has presented  the  following  issues for determination

a. Whether  the 1st  Respondent  obtained  share No.1110 from the  Claimant  out of fraud.

b. What orders  are available  in the circumstances ?

Fraud

As was  rightly  submitted  by the  2nd  Respondent,  Black’s  Law  Dictionary, 9th  Edition; defines  fraud  to mean:

“ a knowing  misrepresentation of the truth or a concealment  of a material  fact  to induce  another  to act  to his/her  detriment. Fraud  is usually  a tort, but in  some cases,  especially when the conduct  is willful, it may be  a crime.”

It is trite law  that  whenever  a party pleads fraud,  he/she  must specifically  prove it.  This was the holding of  the court in the case of  Mutiria  Karubai M...vs-  James  Njagi  Makembo &  3 others[2018] eKLR. In the pertinent  part, the court held  thus:

“It  is trite  law  that fraud  must not only be pleaded,  but the particulars  of fraud  must be particularized  by the  party pleading  fraud. The allegation must be  strictly  proved.”

In terms  of the standard  of  prove,  the court  had this to say  in the case of  Gudka – vs-  dodhia,  Civil Appeal No.  21 of 1980:

“ The  Respondent  was in effect  being  accused of fraudulent conduct  and  allegations  of fraud  must be strictly  proved. The fraudulent  conduct  must be strictly proved more than a mere balance  of  probabilities...”

The court  in the case of  Patil Patel  -vs-  Laisi Makanji EA 1957 echoed  this position  in the  following  terms:

“ Allegations of fraud  must be strictly  proved,  although  the standard  of proof  merely  not  be so heavy  as to require  proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  something  more than  a mere balance  of probabilities  is required.”

In the present  claim,  the Claimant  contend that  the 1st  Respondent  in cahoots  with the  2nd  Respondent,  fraudulently  obtained  and/or  acquired  her  membership No. 1110 from  the 2nd  Respondent. That she  got to  know about  the said fraud  in the year,  2012.

On  their part,  the Respondents contend  that the Claimant wilfully sold and transferred  the said  membership  to  the  1st Respondent  in the year,  1980.

Further,  the Claimant  has disowned  the documents  produced  by the Respondents  as proof of transfer  of membership and stated that  the same are forgeries.

We have  considered  the contentions  of the Claimant  and the opposition  from the  Respondents. We  have also perused  the materials on  record  and deduce  the following:

a. That the Claimant  sold plot No. 1365  to the 1st  Respondent  in  the year  1980;

b. That contemporaneous  to transfer  of the said plot  (to 1st Respondent) the Claimant  transferred  her membership to the said  1st  Respondent on  14. 11. 1980.

c. That the process  of transfer  of the Claimant’s  plot and  membership was sanctioned  by the then area  assistant  chief.

We have  particularly  considered  the evidence  of  RW-2, James  Mula  Mulinge. He is the  then area  assistant  chief for  Momaundu  sub location. He gave  a blow- by  blow  account of  events that led  to the Claimant  transferring  her plot  and membership to the 1st  Respondent.  We find his evidence  credible  since he  is the one who witnessed  the  events  unfold.

We  have also  appreciated  the  following  documents  produced  by the  1st  Respondent.

a. Sale Agreement  dated 6. 11. 1980;

b. Letter of transfer  of share No.  1110 dated 14. 11. 1980;

c. Letter  of Claimant’s  husband  dated  9. 8.1981;

d. Letter  of acknowledgement  by the 2nd  Respondent  to effect transfer; and

e. Extract  of members  register No. 1109-1112.

These  documents  show the  process  that led  to the transfer  of the said plot  and the membership to the  1st Respondent.

Whilst  the Claimant  has disowned  the said  documents  on account of  forgery, she has not led evidence  to prove  the same.  Forgery is a serious  allegation  which  has  the potential  of giving  rise to  criminal  charges should  a person be found  culpable. The Claimant  has not led  evidence  to demonstrate  that she has  reported the event of  forgery to  police  and the extent  to which  the same  has been  proven.

Better still, the Claimant  did not  procure  the services or evidence  of a document examiner  to prove  the said allegation. It thus  remain  a wild and naked allegation. The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we find that  the Claimant  has  not proved  that  the  1st  Respondent  fraudulently  obtained  her membership No. 1110 from herself.

While  holding  so,  we read  a lot of  mischief  in the timing of the  instant claim.  The instant  claim was  instituted  in the year,  2013 while the occurrences being  challenged  took place in  1980.  This is a period  of over  32  years.  Where was  the Claimant  all this time.  Has she woken  up from slumber  and realized  that she  had  invested  in  the  2nd  Respondent  and  that she  needed  to follow  up on  the same? As a diligent  and active  member, why did she not  query  or  ascertained  the status of her membership for such a  long period  of time?

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we do not  find merit  in the claim  and  hereby  dismiss it in its  entirety.  Taking  into account  the circumstances  of this case and  in light of the vexatious  nature  of  the claim, we condemn the Claimant  to meet  the  costs  of the claim.

Judgment signed, dated and delivered virtually this 7th day of  January,  2021.

Hon. F. Terer                        Deputy Chairman       Signed       7. 1.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki                      Member                       Signed       7. 1.2021

Mr. B. Akusala                     Member                       Signed       7. 1.2021

In the presence  of Mr. Sakini holding brief  for Mr. Orina  for 1st Respondent

Claimant  absent

Court clerk-        Maina

Hon. F. Terer                          Deputy Chairman      Signed       7. 1.2021