Bernice Katunge Mutuku v Kwetu Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 576 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.479 OF 2017

BERNICE  KATUNGE MUTUKU....................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

KWETU  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED....RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 22. 10. 2020,  the Respondent has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders  inter alia:

a. That this Application  be and is hereby  certified  urgent  and be heard  ex-parte  as regards prayer 2;

b. That pending  the  inter-parties  hearing  and determination  of this  Application there be a stay  of execution  and/or  execution  proceedings  arising from  the Judgment  entered  herein on the condition that the Respondent do pay the Claimant a sum of Kshs.206,923/= within seven (7) days hereof;

c. That after the payment in 2 above, the Respondent/Applicant be and is hereby  allowed  to  pay the  balance  of the decretal  sum thereof Kshs.168,193 in seven (7) equal  monthly  installments  beginning  from the 10th  of November  2020, and  every subsequent  10th day  of  every  month  thereafter  until payment  in full; and

d. Costs be provided for.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn  by Samuel Muthoka  on  22. 10. 2020. The Claimant has  opposed  the Application  vide the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by himself  on 4. 11. 2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  16. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant  filed  his submissions  on  8. 12. 2020 but  the Respondent  did not  despite  several  reminders.

Respondent’s Case

Vide the  instant  Application, the Judgment  debtor  seeks  to be allowed  to settle  the balance  of decretal  amount  of Kshs.168,193/= in  seven (7) equal  monthly  installments  on account  of the fact that  it is saddled  with many  share refunds  claims  lodged  with the  Tribunal. That  if the instant  claim  is paid  in full,  then  it will be destabilized.

Claimant’s  Case

The Claimant  has opposed  the Application  on the grounds  that he is  entitled  to enjoy  the fruits  of his judgment. That  a period  of over one (1)  year has  passed  since  the Respondent  was served  with the Decree  but  it  has not  made any effort  to settle  the decretal  amount.

That it is  not true that  Covid-19 has hindered  the Respondent’s ability  to pay  the decretal  amount.  That  the decree  herein  was served  upon the  Respondent 5 months  before Covid -19 struck.

Issues for determination

We have  framed  the following  issues  for determination

a. Whether  the Respondent  has made  out a proper  case  to be allowed  to settle  the decretal  amount  on installment;

b. What orders  are available  in the circumstances?

Settlement  of decretal  amount  by  way  of installments

We have  jurisdiction  to make  an Order  regarding  payment  of decretal  amount  by way  of installments  by dint of  Order  21 Rule 12of the Civil Procedure  Rules. It provides  thus:-

“ 12 (2)  After  passing  of any such  decree, the court  may on the Application  of  the Judgment  Debtor  and with  the consent  of the Decree  Holder  or without  the consent  of the  Decree Holder,  for sufficient  cause  shown,  Order that  the payment  of the amount decreed  be postponed  or be made  by  installments  or such  terms as  to the payment of interest, the attachment  of the property of  the judgment  debtor, or the  taking  of  security  from him, or  otherwise,  as it  thinks  fit..”

Whether  or not  to allow  a party  to settle  the decretal  amount  by way  of installments  is a matter  of discretion. This  was the  holding  of the  court  in the case  of  KTK Advocates – vs-  Baringo  County  Government[2018] eKLR.

Looking  at the provisions  of the law  in light  of the instant  Application, we are satisfied  that the  Respondent  has made  out a case  to  warrant  us  to allow  it to settle the decretal  amount  by way of  installments. For starters,  and as a show of good  faith,  it has made  a one-off payment of Kshs.209,923/-. What  is thus due  and outstanding  is  Kshs.168,193/=.

We are  alive  to the  fact  that the Respondent is  facing  liquidity  problems  and that  if it  is  following  upon  on members  who had taken  loans  and have  not  repaid  the same. That  this recovered  amounts  are applied  towards settlement  of member- refunds.  If we thus allow the  Claimant  to execute  the decretal amount  at once,  then  the Respondent  may plunge  into  total financial  crisis thus denying  their creditors  an opportunity  to recover  their monies.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that  we find merit  in the Application  and allow  it based  on the following  terms:

a. That the Respondent  is allowed  to settle  the balance  of the decretal  amount  of Kshs. 168,193/= by way  of five (5)  equal  monthly  installments of Kshs.33,600/= effective  10th  of November  2020;

b. That should  the Respondent  fail to pay  any of  the installments  as and when  they fall due,  then the Claimant  will be entitled  to recover  the entire  decretal  amount  without further  reference  for the Tribunal.

c The Respondent  to meet  the cost  of this Application.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH  DAY OF  MARCH,  2021

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairperson     Signed      4. 3.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama     Deputy Chairperson  Signed      4. 3.2021

B. Akusala                    Member             Signed      4. 3.2021

No appearance for parties

Hon. B. Kimemia    Chairperson     Signed      4. 3.2021