Benson Mwenda Ng’ang’a v Forward Travellers Sacco Limited & J.K. Muchendu t/a Icon Auctioneers [2021] KECPT 558 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.209 OF 2019

BENSON MWENDA NG’ANG’A..........................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

FORWARD  TRAVELLERS  SACCO  LIMITED .........................1ST RESPONDENT

J.K. MUCHENDU  T/A  ICON  AUCITONEERS..........................2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 7. 2.2020, the Claimant has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

1. Spent;

2. That  this Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to lift the attachment  of the Claimant’s  good namely Motor vehicle  Registration  Number  KBS 037 D  and KCL 088A proclaimed by Icon  Auctioneers  on 6. 2.2020;

3. Spent;

4. Spent.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit sworn by himself on 7. 2.2020.

The Respondents  have  opposed  the Application vide  the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by George  Njoroge  Mugo on 16. 3.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  19. 11. 2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant filed his submissions on  15. 9.2020 while  the Respondent did so  on 18. 11. 2020.

Claimant’s Contention

It is  the Claimant’s  case that  the  2nd Respondent  has proclaimed  his motor  vehicles Registration Number KBS 037D  and  KCL  088A without  complying  with the provisions  of Rules  11 and  12 of  Auctioneers Rules. That it has  attached  the said  motor vehicle  without  attaching  a value  of  them. That  motor vehicle  registration  number  KCL  088 A is  valued at Kshs.4. 5Million  while  KBS  037D is valued  at Kshs. 1. 8 Million.

That the  dispute  between  the Claimant  and the  1st  Respondent  as regards  Motor vehicle  KBS 037D is whether  the Same  belongs  to a third party. That the said dispute await  determination  in CM.CC.NO.6435/19. That motor vehicle  registration  Number  KCL  088A is subject  to Tribunal  case no. 559/17.

Respondent’ s case

The Respondents have  opposed  the Application  on grounds  that the Tribunal  dismissed  the Claimant’s  statement  of claim on  22. 8.2019. That  the Claimant  did not Appeal the said decision. That they  are not aware  of the Application dated  7. 10. 2019. That  the Tribunal became  function officio when it dismissed  the claim and they  has no business  hearing  the alleged application  dated 11. 10. 2019. That the allegation that the value  of the  said motor  vehicle  was not disclosed  is not  a bar to attachment.  That the suit pending  at the Chief Magistrate  court  and the Tribunal  have no hearing  in this matter.  That the  Respondent  is entitled  to the fruits  of  its judgment.

Issues  for determination

We have  framed  the following  issues  for determination :

a. Whether  the Claimant  has  laid  a proper  basis  to warrant  the release  of  motor vehicle  registration  numbers KBS 037D and  KCL  088A;

b. Who  should  meet  the costs of  the Application?

Release of  motor vehicle

The Claimant has prayed for an Order of release of his attached  motor vehicles.  His basis  for seeking the Application  principally on the ground  that the  2nd  Respondent  did not comply  with Rules  11 and  12 of  the Auctioneers  Rules in that the said motor vehicle  were not  valued.  That motor vehicle Registration  number  KCL  088A  is the subject matter of Tribunal  case No. 559/17while  motor vehicle registration  number  KBS O37D is subject  to proceedings  in CM.CC.NO. 6435/19. That  the attachment  of the said motor  vehicle is only meant  to defeat  the case  of justice  in the two suits.

On its part,  the Respondents contend that  it has followed due process  in attaching the said  motor vehicles and  that there is  no order  staying the execution  of the certificate of  costs  issued by the Tribunal  in this matter. That  it is not privy  to the suits  referred  to by the Claimant.

We have  perused  the proceedings  herein,  we note that  the instant  claim  was dismissed  for want of  jurisdiction  with  costs  on  22. 8.19 subsequently. A decree embodying costs of  Kshs.46,530/- was  extracted. Further,  a warrant of  attachment  and sale of moveable  property  dated  30. 1.2020 was  issued.  This warrant  is the subject  matter  of these proceedings. Whilst  executing  the warrant, the  2nd  Respondent  proclaimed  and attached  the Respondent’s motor vehicles registration numbers  KBS  037D  and KCL  088A. The  Claimant  has objected  to  the attachment of the  said  motor vehicles  on this grounds namely; that no valuation  was done and secondly, that  the said motor  vehicles were subject  of proceedings  in other suits. We will  address  these issues  thematically as follows:-

Valuations

Rule 11(i(  (a)  (IV) of the  Auctioneers  Rules  provides  thus:

“11 (I) (a) (iv) A Court  warrant  or  letter  of instruction  shall, include,  in  the case of  (a) a moveable  property;

(IV) where appropriate, reserve  prices or where  there are   to be no  reserve  prices,  a record  of the  reasons  for not selling  subject to  reserve  prices”

Rule  12  (I) (b) of the said  Rule  provide thus:

“ 12 (1) upon  receipt  of a court warrant... the auctioneers  shall...

(b)  prepare a proclamation  in sale form 2  of the schedule  indicating  the value  of specific  items  and the condition of each item,  such inventory  to be signed  by the owner  of the good....”

What we  gather  from these  Rules is  that before  an auctioneer  attaches  the goods of a judgment  Debtor, he/she should indicate  the value  of each of  the movable  property so proclaimed. The question  arises  as to whether  this happened  in the present case.  We have perused  the proclamation  Notice  produced by  the Claimant. We  note that the value  of the motor vehicle  the subject  matter of this Application  are not indicated. This therefore  mean that the Respondent  did not comply  with the provisions  of Rule 11 and 12 above.

Existence of  other suits

The Claimant  has advanced  an argument  that the  2nd  Respondent  is estopped  from proclaiming  the said motor vehicles as they are   the subject  matter of  proceedings  in  CMCC.NO.  6435/19 and  CC.NO. 559/17. The Respondents have opposed  the argument on  the ground  that the said  suits  are  not relevant  and/or  recalled  to the proceedings.  Whilst  the status  of CTC.NO. 559/17  has not been disclosed, we have  perused  annexture BMN-2 and note that  proceedings  in CMCC.NO.6435/19 relate  to injunctive  proceedings  against  the Respondent. As  the Respondent  contends,  these  suits  do not have  a bearing  or  the matters  the subject  of the  warrants of attachment  in this claim. As such,  the mere fact they  exist  does not  oust  the jurisdiction  of Tribunal to execute  processes in the current claim.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that the Application  partially  succeed  to the extent  that the 2nd Respondent  did not  disclose  the value  of  motor vehicle registration  number  KBS 037D and KCL 088A in the proclamation  Notice.  We accordingly  set aside the proclamation  Notice  and direct  the Respondents  to issue the Claimant  with a fresh  proclamation  that complies  with Rule  11 (1) (a) (VI) and  12 1 (b) of the Auctioneer  Rules. No orders as to costs.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 25th  day of  March,  2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairperson                         Signed      25. 3.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama     Deputy Chairperson            Signed      25. 3.2021

B. Akusala                  Member                                 Signed      25. 3.2021

Miss  Gikonyo holding brief  for Mr. Thuita  for Respondent.

Application dated  7. 2.2020.

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairperson                          Signed      25. 3.2021