David Macharia Kibira & Mary Nyambura Macharia v Biashara Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 581 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.751 OF 2019

DAVID  MACHARIA  KIBIRA....................................................1ST CLAIMANT

MARY  NYAMBURA MACHARIA ...........................................2ND CLAIMANT

VERSUS

BIASHARA  SACCO  SOCIETY LIMITED.............................. RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide  the Notice of Preliminary  Objection  dated 25. 2.2020,  the Respondent  has opposed  the instant claim as well as  the Claimant’s Application  dated  13. 12. 2019 on grounds that the claim and the Application  are  Res judicata  as per  the Ruling  in Nyeri CMCC.NO. 360  of  2019; David  Macharia  Kibira  - vs- Biashara  Sacco  Society  Limited  & Another.

Vide the directions  of  27. 7.2020,  the Notice  of Preliminary  Objection  was canvassed  by way of written  submissions. The Respondent  filed its submissions on  10. 9.2020.  While  the Claimant  did so  on  11. 11. 2020.

Respondents Contention

Vide  the  submissions  filed  on  10. 9.2020,  the Respondent  contend  that the instant  Application  and the claim  is sub judice Nyeri  CM.CC.NO.79/19. That  as explained  in the Replying  Affidavit sworn by  Joseph  Kamau Njamuki on 27. 2.2020 the 2nd  Claimant applied  for and was granted  by  the Respondent  a loan  of  Kshs.1,200,000/= in August  2017.  That the  1st  Claimant  guaranteed  the said loan. That  the 1st  Claimant’s  security  as a guarantor  was property L.R.NO. Thegenge/Karia/4358. That  the said property  was charged  to the Respondent  as part of  the 1st  Claimant’s  continuing  financial  accommodation.  That the Claimant’s subsequently defaulted  in  repaying  the loan prompting  the Respondent  to advertise  the property for  sale on  three (3) occasions. That  the sale of  the said property has not materialized  as the Claimants  have obtained  court injunctions  to stop  it from  selling  it. That  this injunctions  have been  obtained as follows:

a. On 19. 2.2019 in  CM.CC.NO.360/18- David  Macharia  Kibira and Mary  Nyambura  Macharia – vs-  Biashara  Sacco Society Limited  & Providence  Auctioneers,

b. On  11. 11. 2019 vide  CM.CC.NO.79/19 David  Macharia  Kibira  -vs-  Biashara Sacco  Society  Limited  &  Providence  Auctioneers.

That  to the extent  that the Claimants have failed  to  obtain injunctive  Orders  in the Civil  Courts,  current  suits and Application are res judicata.

Claimant’s Case

Vide the submissions filed  in  11. 11. 2020, the Claimants sought  to  address  the  issue of  Res judicata as raised in  the  Preliminary Objection by setting  out  the Principles  that  govern  the terminology.  That  in the case  of Accredo Attorney  General  &  3 others  - vs- Steffano Ucceli & Another [2019] eKLR, the court  set out  of paragraph 32  of the Ruling  as to include.

a. That  the  suit  or issue  was directly  and substantively  in issue  in the former suit.

b. That the former  suit was between  the same  parties  or parties under whom they  or any of their claim;

c. The parties  were litigating  under  the same  title;

d. The issue  was heard  and finally  determined  in the former suit;

e. The court  that formerly  heard  and determined  the issue  was competent  to  try  the subsequent suit or  the suit  in which  the  issue  is raised.

After setting out  the foregoing  principles, the Claimants submit  that the current  suit is not  Res judicata as  the court   in CMCC.NO.360/18 merely  downed  tools on account  of  lack  of requisite  jurisdiction to entertain  the matter.

As regards CMCC.NO.79/19, the Claimants contend  that the same  has only  been raised  at submissions  stage  and  as such  this Tribunal  does not  have the benefit  of interrogating  it.

Issues  for determination

The Respondent’s  Notice  of Preliminary  Objection  dated 25. 2.2020 has presented  the  following issues for determination:

a. Whether  the instant  claim  and the Application  dated 13. 11. 2019 are Res judicata ;

b. Whether  the instant claim  and Application  dated  13. 11. 2019 are sub-judice CM.CC.NO. 79/19(Nyeri);

c. Who  should  meet  the  costs  of the Application  sub-judice.

We  will  clear with  this issue  as a Preliminary  one. The Notice  of  Preliminary  Objection  dated  25. 2.2020 only confine  itself  to the issue  of  res judicata emanating  from  the  court’s decision  in CM.CC.NO.360/2018. The  Respondent  has introduced  the aspect  of CM.CC.NO.79/19 at submissions stage. We find  that the said  issue  has not been properly moved by  the  Respondents. Needless  to say that  even  if we were  to  consider  the issue  of sub judice as asserted  by the Respondent  in its written  submissions,  the same cannot  be considered  to  be a pure point  of law as  was held  by the court  in  the case of  Mukisa  Biscuit  Manufacturing  Company Limited  - vs-  West End  Distributors  Limited[1969] EA 696. In the  pertinent  part,  the court held:

“ So far as  I am aware, a Preliminary  Objection  consists  of a point  of  law which  has been  pleaded, or which  arises  by clear  implication  out of pleadings,  and which  if argued  as a Preliminary  point  may dispose of  the suit.”

By contending  that the  current  claim  is res judicata, the Respondent  is inviting  us to ascertain  whether  a suit by  reference  No.  79/19 exist and what is  its current  status.  If we did  that,  then  the issue ceases  being  a  pure point  of law.  It will then be disqualified  from being  considered as such.

Res judicata

The Respondent  contend  that the instant  claim is Res judicata Nyeri, CM.CC.NO.360 OF 18.  The  said Ruling  is on record  as part of the Claimants list  and  bundle  of documents. It was delivered  on  19. 2.2019.

Upon  perusal,  we note  that the  court  suit  and Application  were struck  off since the  court did not  have  the requisite  jurisdiction  to entertain  it.  While  doing  so,  the  court made  reference  to  section  76  of the Co-operative  Societies Act,  which Section  confers jurisdiction  to entertain  matters  of this nature in this Tribunal.

Nowhere  in the said Ruling  have  we found  a part where  the court  heard and determined  the matter  to its  logical conclusion as is required  in the case  of Res judicata. By section  70  of the Civil  Procedure  Act (Cap 21) Laws  of Kenya.

We thus  agree with  the Claimants that the current  claim  and the Claimant’s Application  dated 13. 11. 2019 are nto Res judicata.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  do not find  merit  in the Respondent’s  Notice  of Preliminary  Objection  dated 25. 2.2020 and hereby  dismiss it with costs  to the Claimants.

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     ..................................