Carolyn Achieng Otieno v Luhano FSA Sacco Society Limited [2019] KECPT 25 (KLR)

REPUBLIC KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE  TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

CTC NO.570 OF  2017

CAROLYN ACHIENG OTIENO...................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

LUHANO FSA  SACCO SOCIETY  LIMITED.......RESPONDENT

RULING

This is a Ruling  on  the application  dated 7. 9.2018.  It’s  expressed to  be  brought under order  8 rule  3 (1) (27)&(5), rule  5 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules, Section  63C  at  3A of the Civil  Procedure  Act and  all the enabling  provisions  of the law.  The orders  sought are:-

1. That  the Tribunal be  pleased  to grant  the Claimant  leave to additionally  re-amend  her statement  of claim  filed  herein.

2. That  the Respondents  be condemned  to pay the costs of this application.

The Application  is premised  on the three grounds listed on the face of  it and supported by the affidavit  annexed  thereto. It’s opposed.  The  Respondent  filed a Replying Affidavit.  It came up for hearing on  22. 11. 2018. Parties took  directions to  canvass  the application by way of  written  submissions.  They have  since complied.

The gist of the Application  is that the Claimant has  since received a valuation  report and wish  to reflect  the figures  in the claim and to remove the  2nd  Respondent  as he was an agent of the Respondent. The purpose for which the 2nd Respondent was joined is overtaken by events.

The  basis  of the opposition  is that  the valuation  report could  not have been  produced  by a truce not Surgeon  as the cows  had  already been sold.  A veterinary surgeon would need to examine physically the cows.  The report cannot be objective. It relies on hearsay. That the 2nd  Respondent  carried  out the sale  hence cannot be  removed from  the claim  and  no justice will be served  on the part  of  the  1st  Respondent.

We have considered the application, rival affidavits, and submissions.

Order  8 Rule  3 of  the  Civil  procedure  Rules  governs  amendment  of  pleadings.

In  Andrew Ouko versus Kenya  Commercial  Bank Limited  and  3  others  (2014) eKLR the  court  held that:

“ The overriding consideration  in Applications  for  leave is  whether  the  amendments  are necessary  for the just determination  of the controversy between  the parties”

In  Hiram  Bere Kinuthia  and  2 others  versus  Edick  Omondi  and  3 others (2014)eKLR   the court  stated that:-

“.......the court  under order 8 Rule  3 (1) has  unfettend   discretion  to allow amendment  of  pleadings  at any stage  of the proceedings  on such  terms  as  to  costs  or otherwise  as may be  just and  in such  manner as  it  may  direct”.

The objection by the Respondents in the present case is on the basis and validity of the evidence the Claimants intends to rely on to amend the claim.

In our view the validity of the report is an issue for main trail.

The report will be subjected to the rules of evidence and the Respondent will have their say on it.

It is the Claimant’s  case and  they  decide  what  aspects they  wish to  bring out  and  the nature  of evidence to rely on.  It will be  prejudicial  for  the Tribunal  to substantively  comment on the  report at  this  juncture.  He who alleges must proof and we believe   the Claimant appreciates this Rule.

On the removal  of 2nd  Respondents  from  the pleadings,  an amendment  of  that nature  is  contemplated  under order 8.  The claimants indicate that the 2nd Respondents is no longer a necessary party.

In our view  and  as correctly  stated by the claimant,  the  2nd Respondent  can  only be sued  at  this Tribunal  as an  agent of the  1st Respondent.

If the course of action were separate from Section 76 of the

Co-operative Societies Act will oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal against the Respondent.  It is in this regard therefore that this Respondent need not to be mentioned as a party. No orders can issue  directly and/or  specifically against  this Respondent  from this  Tribunal.  The amendment to remove  it is  thus  in order.

The Claimant is the successful party. We will however not award  costs  as the application  was equally  necessary on its  part. Costs will abide the outcome of the claim.

In the upshot, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer 1. The Claimant  to facilitate filing  on the  re-amended  claim  on record within  14 days of this  Ruling by payment of  requisite  fees and date  stamping.  It will then be served for the Respondent who are  hereby  granted  corresponding leave. Orders accordingly.

C. Kithinji

Deputy Chairman    Signed

P. Swanya

Member         Signed

F.F Odhiambo

Member       Signed

Delivered  in open  court

Ms.  Oburu  holding brief  for  Onyango  for  1st Respondent

Court clerk   C. Maina

Signed

C. Kithinji

Deputy Chairman

7. 01. 2019