Daniel Dickson Kiprono v Transcom Sacco Limited [2021] KECPT 573 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.532 OF 2020

DANIEL DICKSON  KIPRONO..........CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TRANSCOM SACCO  LIMITED....RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 26. 8.2020, the Respondent has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for the following Orders:

1. That  this  Application  be certified as urgent  and heard  exparte in the  first  instance;

2. That pending  the hearing  and final determination  of the Application  the Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to grant a temporary  stay of execution  of the exparte Judgment/ Orders  made on  1st July, 2020, decree/execution  dated 19th August  2020 and all other  consequential  Orders  arising therefrom;

3. That  the Respondent  be granted  leave to defend  its case as per its  statement  of defence  dated 25th  January, 2019 and  each party’s  case be determined  on merit;

4. That the Respondent  be allowed  to cross examine  the Claimant to the claimant ( on his  documents, payments made  to him and on the alleged debt the subject or execution) and this Application; and

5. That the costs of this Application  be  provided for the Respondent.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavits of  Maina  Nguya, the Respondent’s  Manager sworn on 26. 8.2020.

The Claimant  has  opposed  the Application vide the   Replying  Affidavit  sworn by himself on 23. 10. 2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  31. 8.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent   filed  its submissions  on  17. 11. 2020while  the Claimant  did so  on 9. 11. 2020.

Respondent’s  Contention

It is  the Respondent’s  contention  that his advocate  on record was never served  with any hearing  Notice  or  Application  that resulted  in the  exparte  judgment  being made  and a decree  issued.  That the Claimant  uttered  before  the  Tribunal  forged  documents  and therefore the Order  obtained  is underserving.

Claimant’s Contention

On its part,  the Claimant  opposes  the Application  on  the ground that whilst the Respondent  filed  a statement  of Defence   as stated, he filed  an Application  to strike  it out  dated  25. 9.2020. That  the said Application  was scheduled to come up for  hearing on  26. 2.2020. That  the Application  was served upon  the Respondent’s Advocate  who declined  to  accept service  stating that he had  no  instructions to act  in the  matter and  directed  him to serve the Respondent  in person. That a return  of service  to that effect  was filed.  That when the matter came up  for hearing of the Application  on 26. 2.2020, there  was no representation on the part of the Respondent. The Tribunal  then proceeded  to allow the said  Application  by striking  off  the Respondent’s Defence.

Determination

We note  that the Claimant’s  Application  dated 19. 9.2019 was allowed  as  a result  of non-attendance by the Respondent on 26. 2.2020. The Respondent, vide the  instant Application  contend  that  it was not served  with a hearing  Notice for the said date.  The Claimant  contends  that the Respondent’s Advocate  on record  was served but declined  service  on account  that he did  not  have instructions  to act for  Respondent. That  the Advocate  then directed  the process server  to effect  service  of the Notice  upon  the Respondent in person.

We have  perused  the Affidavit  of service  sworn by Andrew  Kyalo Mwazia on  18. 2.2020. It is  apparent  that whilst  it is averred that  the  firm of  Juda Ndiso & Company  Advocates declined  to receive  the Application  and the hearing  Notice  on 19. 12. 2019, there is  evidence  that the Respondent  was personally  served  with the said  Application  and Notice  on even  date  at  11. 30a.m. We have  perused  the counterpart copy of the hearing  Notice  and note that  the same  bears  the stamp  of the Respondent.  The  Respondent  cannot therefore be heard  to say  that  it was  not aware  of proceedings of 26. 2.2020.

However,  taking all  factors  into account,  and noting  the need to  administer  substantive  justice,  we deem it fit to  set aside  the Orders  of  26. 2.2020 and re-instate the Claimant’s  Application  dated 19. 9.2019 and give directions  on  its disposal  as follows:

a. The Respondent  to file and  serve  a Response  to the Application  within  7 days herein;

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

c. The Respondent  to file and  serve written  submissions within 14 days  of service;

d. Mention  to confirm  compliance  and fixing  a Ruling date on 4. 3.2021.

e. Respondent  to pay Claimant   thrown away costs of  Kshs.5000 before  4. 3.2021.

RULING 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. Kariuki holding brief  for  Mr. Magale for Claimant

Respondent absent

Court clerk         Maina

Hon. F. Terer    Deputy Chairman      Signed      7. 1.2021