Alexander Nderitu, Hussein Adams, Peter Odhiambo, Benson Kigada, Eliud Kwambata, Francis Majanga, Charles Nangendo, Hannah Kibe, Rodgers Wanyonyi & Jason Mzuga v Onesmus Maweu; Egerton University Sacco Society Limited (Third Party) [2021] KECPT 522 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.160 OF 2015

ALEXANDER  NDERITU.................................................1ST  CLAIMANT

HUSSEIN  ADAMS.............................................................2ND CLAIMANT

PETER  ODHIAMBO.........................................................3RD CLAIMANT

BENSON KIGADA..............................................................4TH CLAIMANT

ELIUD  KWAMBATA..........................................................5TH CLAIMANT

FRANCIS  MAJANGA.........................................................6TH CLAIMANT

CHARLES  NANGENDO.....................................................7TH CLAIMANT

HANNAH  KIBE....................................................................8TH CLAIMANT

RODGERS  WANYONYI......................................................9TH CLAIMANT

JASON MZUGA...................................................................10TH CLAIMANT

VERSUS

ONESMUS MAWEU.................................................................RESPONDENT

AND

EGERTON  UNIVERSITY  SACCO SOCIETY  LIMITED.....3RD PARTY

RULING

Before  us for  consideration  and determination  are two Applications: the Claimant’s  Application  dated  22. 10. 2019 and the Respondent’s Application  dated 19. 9.2020. Since  the  Respondent’s Application  dated  19. 9.2020 has been  triggered  by the Claimant’s  Application  dated 22. 10. 2019, we will  consider  Application  and determine  it first.

Respondent’s  Application  dated  19. 9.2020

This  Application  seeks  for  Orders  inter alia:

1.  That  this Tribunal  be pleased  to issue  an Order  directing  Safaricom Limited  to avail  phone call  data for mobile  phone  No. 0728580961 showing  its location  2. 10. 2019;

2.  That the 7th  Claimant  be availed  for purposes  of cross  examination  on his averments contained  in his supporting  Affidavit  sworn  on 22. 10. 2019.

The  Application  is supported by  the grounds  on its face  and the Affidavit  sworn  by the Respondent  on 15. 9.2020. The Claimants  have opposed  the Application  vide  the grounds  of opposition  dated  27. 10. 2020.

Respondent’s Contention

Vide  the instant  Application, the  Respondents contend that  the 7th  Claimant  has  sworn  an Affidavit  on  22. 10. 19 giving  false  and misleading  information  that he  was in Njoro in the morning  of 2. 10. 2019 and  only  arrested at Nairobi at 2p.m. That  in Order  for the Tribunal  to ascertain  the  exact  location  of the  7  Claimant on that day,  phone call dates is the only means  to do so.

Claimant’s Contention

The Claimants have  opposed  the Application  on grounds  that the same  is  not anchored  in any provisions of the  law and that the Tribunal  lacks the requisite  jurisdiction  to grant  the prayers  sought. That  the Application  is meant  to  .......  the hearing  of the Claimant’s  Application  dated 22. 10. 2020.

From the  foregoing, the  question   we pause  is whether  we have jurisdiction  to  grant  the Orders  sought  in  lieu of the provisions  of Article  31  of the Constitution. The Article  touches  on the Right to  Privacy  and it provides thus:

“ Every  person  has the right  to  privacy, which  includes  the right  not  to have-

a. Their  person, house  or property  searched;

b. The  possession  seized;

c. Information  relating  to their  family or private  affairs  unnecessary  required  or revealed;

d. The  privacy  of their communication infringed.

The  Irish Supreme  Court underscored  the need  to protect   the privacy of a person  in the case  of  Kennedy  - vs-  Ireland  [1987] I.R.587 in the following  terms:

“ The dignity  and freedom  of an individual  in a democratic  society  cannot  be ensured   if his  communication  of private  nature, be  they  written  or  telephone, are  deliberately,  consciously  and unjustifiable  intruder  upon and  interfered with.”

A telephone  number  or line  is private  property which  contains  private  information  only unique  to the user of  the line.  At every given  time or period, telephone  service  provides  are the custodians of  this  private  information  as they are  the  medium  in which  they are relayed. They  are thus in  a  position  of confidence  and that  they can only allow  the legitimate user  of the respective  lines to access  such  information. Unless  for security  reasons or by dint  of a court  Order, the  said information  should not be divulged  or  shared. Even with  court Orders,  courts  cannot issue  Orders  for  third parties  to access  such  information without  proper cause being  shown  by  such third parties. In the  present  case, the Respondents want us to compel  Safaricom  limited  to  share information  regarding  the whereabouts  of the 7th  Claimant on 22. 10. 2019.  We find that whilst  the said  service  provider may be in a position  to  do so, the said  Order  may end up  trampling the 7th  Claimant’s  right to privacy as the information contained  with line  is not only limited  to  his whereabouts.

Further,  we find  that since  the Respondent’s borne  of contention  is the  7th  Claimant’s  whereabouts on  2. 10. 2019 and having appreciated  the circumstances of the court proceedings  on that day and the Claimant’s Application  dated 22. 10. 19,  we find that  access  of the 7th Claimant’s  call or log details  is not  the only way of ascertaining  his whereabouts on  2. 10. 2019. The  7th Respondents  have the right  (which  they have done) to cross examine the 7th  Respondent  on the contents  of the said  Affidavit.

We thus  decline  the invitation  to grant  prayer  1 of the said  Application.

As regards, the prayer  for  cross examination  of the 7th Claimant regarding  the contents  of this supporting  Affidavit sworn  on 22. 10. 2019, we  have looked  at the prayers  sought  in the Claimant’s  Application  dated  22. 10. 2019 and find that  it will not be in the  interests  of judicial  time to take  the route  suggested  by the Respondents. We say so noting  that in  any event,  the Respondents  will not suffer  any prejudice  if the  Claimant’s  Application  dated  22. 10. 2019 succeeds.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing is that we do not  find merit  in the Respondent’s  Application  dated 19. 9.2019 and dismiss  it with costs  in the cause.

Claimant’s  Application  dated  22. 10. 2020

This Application  was filed  on 22. 10. 2019. It seeks  for Orders  inter alia:

a. That  the Tribunal  varies, rescinds  vacates  or reviews  its Orders  issued  on 2. 10. 2019 and  reinstate the claim herein;

b. Costs  to be provided.

The  Application  is supported  by  the grounds  on its face  and  the Affidavit  sworn  by the  7th Claimant  on even dates. The  Respondent  has opposed  the Application  vide  the Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by himself on  24. 1.2020.

Claimant’s  Contention

Vide  the instant  Application  the Claimants seek for the instant claim  to be reinstated  on grounds  that the claim  was dismissed  on 2. 10. 2019 for non- attendance  yet they  were  not  aware  that the matter was  coming up  in court on that day.  That they were  not served  with  the Respondent’s  Application  dated 12. 7.2019. That they  only became  aware of  the proceedings  of  2. 10. 2019 through a telecommunication  from  the CEO of the  3rd  party when  they got  to know that  the matter  was coming  up in court  on that day.

That  the Claimant’s  case and the main claim  revolve  around  their  guarantorship to  the Respondent  in the loan he had taken from  the 3rd  party. That  upon being  granted  the loan  the  Respondent  defaulted  in repaying  the same thus prompting  the 3rd  party  to recover  from them.

Issues for  determination

The Claimant’s Application  dated 22. 10. 2019 has presented the following  issues for  determination:

a. Whether  the claim  herein should  be reinstated;

b. Who  should meet  the cost  for  the Application ?

Reinstatement  of suit

On 2. 10. 2019,  this Tribunal  allowed the Respondent’s Application  dated 12. 7.2019. The said  Application  sought for the dismissal  of the claim for want of prosecution. It  was brought  under Order  17 Rule  2 of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules  6  1 (1) of the  Co-operative  Tribunal  (Practice &  Procedure  Rules) 2009.

For the reasons  underscored  above the  Claimants want  the  claim to  be reinstated.

It is a discretion  of the  court ( and Tribunal) for this matter to set aside an order  made exparte.  This was  the holding of the court  in the case  of  Jim  Rodgers  Gitonga  Njeru- vs-  Al Husanain  Motors Limited  &  2 others. [2018] eKLR.In  the pertinent  part,  the court  held thus:

“ It is  within  the general  discretion  of the court to set  aside an  Order issued  by   it ex-parte. So  long as  sufficient  cause has been shown  for the exercise of  such discretion.”

The court  further elaborated  on this issue  in the case of CMC Holdings Limited –vs- Nzioki [2004]I KLR 173 as  follows:-

“ In law,  the discretion  that  a court of law has,  in deciding  whether or  not to set aside exparte Order........ was  meant to  ensure that  a litigant  does  not suffer  injustice  or hardship as a result  of  among other  things,  an excusable mistake or error..”

Whilst  considering the facts  of this Application  in lieu of the fact that our  jurisdiction  in discretional,  we are also  minded  of the provisions of Order  12  Rule  7  of the Civil  Procedure Rules,  it provides  this :

“ Where  under this Order  judgment  has been entered  or this suit  has been dismissed, the court,  on Application,  may set aside  or vary  the judgment  or  Order  upon such terms  as merely  just...”

Further,  we refer  to the Provisions  of  Section  3A of the Civil Procedure  Act  (cap  21) Laws of Kenya which  provides thus:

“ Nothing  in this Act  shall limit or otherwise  affect  the inherent  power  of  the court to make such Orders  as may be necessary for the ends  of justice  or to prevent  abuse  of the process  of the court.”

The court  in the case  of Peter  Kiplagat  Rono-   vs-  Family  Bank Limited [2018] eKLRupheld  this position  in the following terms:

“ The court  has discretion  to set aside  a judgment or Order.  The exercise  of  this discretion  is intended  to avoid  injustice  or hardship resulting  from  an accident, inadvertence  or excusable  mistake  or error...”

With  these legal  principles  in the fore,  the question  arises  as to whether  the Claimants have made  out  a case  for reinstating  of this claim. It  is the Claimant’s case  that the Respondent  did not serve them with  the Application  which  precipitated  the  dismissal  of the claim for want of prosecution. The Application  is dated 12. 9.2019 on its part, the Respondents  aver that   the Claimants were indeed  served  but elected not  to defend  the Application  or appear  in court when  it came on 2. 10. 2019.

We have  perused  the Affidavit  of service  sworn by Francis  Wambua  on  30. 9.2019. At paragraph  3 thereof, the process server  depones as follows as regards service  of  the Application  dated 12. 9.2019 upon the Claimants:

“That  on  25. 9.2019,  I proceeded  to Egerton  University where the Claimants/Respondents worked and   the office of the Administrator  where I introduced  myself  to the secretary  and the purpose  of  my visit  where he checked  contacts  of the  1st Claimant from their system, then called  and told him about the documents where  after  the conversations, told me that  she had been told to re.....and  they (Claimants/Respondents) would collect  them  from her but he did not sign...”

Clearly,  it is apparent  that the process server  did not  effect  personal  service  of the  Application  (dated  12. 9.2019) on the Claimants. There was  no  way therefore that the Claimants would have  known about  the proceedings  of 2. 10. 2019.

Conclusion

With  the foregoing  in mind,  we find  merit  in the Claimant’s Application  dated 22. 10. 2019 and determine  it as follows:

1.  The proceedings  of  2. 10. 2019 are hereby vacated and the claim  and the Respondent’s  Application  dated 12. 9.2019 are hereby  reinstated;

2.  The Respondent’s Application  dated 12. 9.2019 to be determined  as follows:

a. The Claimants  to file and  serve their  respective  Responses  within 14 days herein;

b. The Respondents  to file and serve  a further  Affidavit  (if need be) alongside  written  submissions within  14 days  of service;

c. The Claimants  to file and  serve  their written  submissions within 14 days of service.

d. Mention  to confirm  compliance  and fixing  a Ruling  date on 3. 3.2021; and

e. Costs  of this Application  to be  in the cause.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

Hon. F. Terer                          Deputy Chairman      ................................

Mr. P. Gichuki                        Member                       .................................

Mr. B. Akusala                        Member                       ..................................

In the absence  of the parties

Court clerk         Maina

Hon. F. Terer                          Deputy Chairman      Signed      7. 1.2021