Elizabeth Wavinya Mutie(Suing As The Administrator Of The Estate Of The Late Paul Mutie Makau v Kathekakai Farmers’ Co-Operative Society Limited [2021] KECPT 553 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.233 OF 2019

ELIZABETH  WAVINYA MUTIE

(suing as the administrator  of the estate  of the late

PAUL  MUTIE MAKAU..............................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

KATHEKAKAI FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY  LIMITED   .......................................................................... RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 3. 9.2019, the Respondent has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

1. Spent;

2. Spent ;

3. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to set aside  the proceedings  and judgment  entered  on  9. 7.2019;

4. That  the Honourable Tribunal  be pleased  to grant  leave  to the Respondent  to file a statement of Defence within  14 days;

5. Costs  in the cause.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit sworn by Amos  James  Kimuli on 3. 9.2019.

The Claimant  has  opposed  the Application vide  the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by his counsel  on record,  Benson  Mbuthia  Njiru on 14. 10. 2019. .

Vide  the  directions  given  on  24. 8.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent filed its written submissions  on  4. 12. 2020 while  the Claimant did so  on 3. 12. 2020.

Respondent’s  Case

It is the  Respondent’s case that  it did not  enter Appearance  nor filed  a Defence  purely  as a result  of a mistake  on the part  of  one of its officials. That  from the copy  of summons  on record it  appears  that the same was  duly served  upon  it as  it bears  its stamp  and the signature  of  its Secretary  Dominic.

That  upon  perusal  of the claim,  the Respondent  notes that  the dispute  is manifested  to be that  of shares (40) but in reality, the same  revolve  around  the ownership  of 40 acres  of land comprising  Katheka- Kail Farm B.  That as such, the  Claimant  has not made  a candid  disclosure  of facts  that:

a. She has  not disclosed  that the late  Paul Mutie  was married  to and survived   by three (3) wives  namely,  Mumbua  Mutie(Deceased), Nthenya Mutie (Deceased) and Elizabeth Wavinya  Mutie.

b. That  the late  Paul Mutie  Makau, upon receipt  of his portion  of land in Farm A measuring  13 ½ acres,  divided  it amongst  the three (3) wives and settled  them with their  respective  children.

c. That  it is apparent  from the Claimant’s  certificate  of confirmation  of grant  that she  declared  herself  as the sole  heir  to properties  in the name  of the late  Maku  Mutie  to own wholly  35 acres.

That  in the circumstances,  and in lieu of the fact  that  the subject  matter revolve  around  ownership of land,  this Tribunal  does not  have jurisdiction  to handle   the dispute  as the same  remains  the preserve  of  the ELC.

Claimant’s  Case

The Claimant  has opposed the  Application  merely  on the ground  that the same offends  the provision of Order  9 Rule  9  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules.

Issues  for determination

1. Whether  the instant Application  offends the provisions  of Order 9 Rule 9 of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules.

2. Whether  the Respondent has  established  a proper  basis  to warrant  the setting aside  of  the default  judgment  entered  on 9. 7.2019.

3. Who should  meet the costs  of the  Application?

Order  9 Rule 9 of the  Civil  Procedure Rules

Order  9  Rule  9 of the  Civil  Procedure  Rules  given the procedure  for representation  of parties  once judgment  has been passed. It  requires  that  once judgment  has been passed, a party can act  in person or  an advocate in court  or record  only upon  consent  being recorded  or vide  a court order  upon being  formally  moved. A question  abound  as to whether  the said Rule  is applicable in the circumstances of this case,  our answer  is in the negative. Order 9 Rule  9  contemplates  a scenario where  a suit  has been  determined  on  merits. The claim herein  has not been determined  on merits. What is  on record  is an interlocutory  judgment. As such, the Respondent  does not  have  to seek  leave  to come  on  record.

Setting aside of default  Judgment

We have  jurisdiction  to set aside a  default  judgment  by dint  of Order  10 Rule  11 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. The Rule  provides  thus:

“ Where  judgment  has been  entered  under this  Order,  the court may  set aside  or vary such  judgment  and any consequential  Decree  or Order  upon  such  terms  as are  just.”

In the case of  Patel – vs-  East  Africa Cargo  Service  Limited (1974)EA 75, the Court underscored this provision  in the following terms:

“ The main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties  and the  court will  not impose  conditions  on itself to fetter  the wide  discretion  given  to it  by the Rules.”

Before  we can exercise  our jurisdiction  under Order  10 Rule 11  above,  we firstly  have to ascertain  whether  the  default  judgment  is a regular  or irregular  one.  If the  Judgment  is an irregular  one,  then we will  set  it  aside  ex debito  justiciae.

This  was the holding  in the case of  K- Rep  Bank  Limited  -vs-  Segment  Distributors  Limited [2017] eKLR.

The court  in the  case of  Fidelity  Commercial Bank  Limited – vs-  Owen Amos  Ndungu  & Another, HCC.NO. 241/1998  gave  a distinction  between  a regular  and irregular judgment  as follows:

“ A distinction  is drawn  between  regular  and irregular  judgments.  Where summons  to  enter  Appearance  has  been served  and  there is  default  in entry  of Appearance  the ex parte  judgment  entered  in default is regular.  But where  the exparte judgment  sought  to be set  aside  is obtained  either because  there  was no proper  service  or any service  at all, of  the summons  to enter  Appearance, such  judgment  is  irregular  and  the affected Defendant  is entitled  to have  it set aside as of right”

Where  the  default  judgment  is  regular,  then  the Tribunal  has to  consider   if the draft  Defence filed with the Application raises triable issues. This was the holding in the case of James Kanyiita Nderitu & Another  - vs-  Marios  Philotas  Ghikes  & Another [2016]eKLR.  In  the pertinent  part,  the court  held thus:

“ In a regular  default  judgment,  the  Defendant  will have  been duly  served  with  summons  to enter  appearance,  but for one  reason  or another,  he failed  to enter appearance or to file  a Defence,  resulting  in default  judgment.  Such  a Defendant  is entitled  under Order  10 Rule  11  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  to move to  court to  set aside  the default  judgment  and to  grant  him leave  to  defend  the suit.  In such a scenario,  the court has unfettered  discretion  in determining  whether  or not to  set aside  the default judgment  and will  take into  account such  factors  as to the  reason  as for  the failure  of the Defendant  to file his  memorandum  of Appearance,  or  defence,  as the case may be, the length  of  time that has  elapsed  since the default  judgment  was entered; whether  the intended  Defence  raises  triable  issues,  the  respective  prejudice each party  is likely  to suffer whether  on the whole,  it is  in the  interests of  justice  to set  aside   the default judgment.”

Reasons  for failure  to enter  Appearance  or file  a Defence

The Respondent  has stated  that whilst  it appears  that summons  to enter  Appearance  was duly served upon  it,  the  same was  not  formally  brought to the attention  of the Management Committee  so as  to trigger  appropriate  action.  That as  such,  there was inadvertence  on entry  of  Appearance  or filing  of Defence.  That  the said  inadvertence  should not  occasion  hardship  on the part of  its membership. The Claimant has not  controverted  this explanation.

We have  considered  the reasons  advanced  by the Respondent  as regards  its failure  to enter  appearance  and  defend  itself.  We find  the same honest and  satisfactory.

Defence  raising  triable  issues

We have  perused  the draft  Defence  annexed  to the Application. We note that  the Respondent  has challenged  the jurisdiction  of the Tribunal  to entertain  the claim.  Jurisdiction  is everything and  it goes  to the root  of  the claim.  We thus find  that the same is  an  issue worth  trying  at hearing  of the main suit.  To this  end we find  that the draft  defence  raises  triable  issues.

Thrown  away costs

The Claimant has prayed  for thrown  away costs  of  Kshs.20,000/= should we  allow the  Application. We  agree  with  her that  she is entitled  to costs.  The Respondent  has  unnecessarily  caused delay  in determination  of the issues  in dispute. We  thus find  that she is  entitled  to  thrown  away  costs.  We will  determine  quantum  in our final  orders  below.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we find  merit  in the Respondent’s  Application  dated  3. 9.2019 and hereby  allow  it as follows:-

a. That the  interlocutory  judgment  dated 9. 7.2019 is hereby  set aside;

b. That the  Respondent is granted leave of 14 days  to file and  serve  a Defence,  witness  statement  and list  and bundle  of documents;

c. The Claimant  to file and  serve  a Reply to the Response  as well as  supplementary  witness  statements  and documents (if need be);

d. Mention  to confirm  compliance  and fixing  a hearing date on 24. 5.2021.

e. In the meantime,  the Respondent  is directed  to pay  the Claimant  thrown  away  cost of Kshs.10,000/= to be paid  on or  before  the hearing date.

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

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  25. 3.2021

Hon. Jane Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed  25. 3.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki    Member   Signed  25. 3.2021

Nyandieka  for Applicant/Respondent

Mbuthia  for Claimant/Respondent

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  25. 3.2021