Francis Kanyi Kiarie v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited [2019] KECPT 51 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 527 A OF 2018

FRANCIS KANYI KIARIE...........................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

URITHI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.................RESPONDENT

RULING

This matter  for determination is a notice of motion dated 6. 4.2019 by the respondent  seeking the following orders:

1.   THAT this application be certified  urgent  and heard  ex-parte  in the first  instance.

2.   THAT pending  hearing and determination  of this Application,  this Honorable  Tribunal  be  pleased  to stay  execution  of the judgment  and decree  issued  herein on  10th  December 2018.

3.   THAT his Honorable Tribunal  be pleased  to set aside  the judgment  and decree  issued  on 10th  December, 2018  and all  the consequential  orders.

4.   THAT  this Honorable Tribunal  be pleased  to grant  leave  to the respondent  to defend  this suit.

5.   THAT costs of this application be in the cause.

On the grounds  that  the claimant obtained judgment  and decree  ex-parte despite  the fact that  the respondent  had filed his defence.

That  there is  danger  of  execution  against  the respondent’s  assets  held  by the respondent  on behalf  of its  members.

That  the respondent  has already  filed  a defence  which raises a triable  issues  against  the claimant’s case, and  other grounds  on the face  of the application. The application  is supported by  one affidavit  of JULIUS  MACHARIA  GACHANJA  the  CEO of the respondent.

The application  is opposed  vide the  replying  affidavit  of   Lizbeth  Mwende  Advocate  for the Claimant deponed  on 16. 4.2019 filed on the same  date.

The claimant  avers that  the suit  was filed on  16. 11. 18 and  the statutory  period  required to enter  appearance  and/or file  defence  had lapsed  and judgment  was entered  in default  of  appearance and other  grounds  on the face of  the replying  affidavit.

The respondent  filed a supplementary  affidavit  on 10. 5.19.

The parties  filed  written  submission  to dispense  the application.

The respondent ‘s  written submissions were filed on  10. 5.2019 and the  claimant’s written submissions were  filed  on 28. 6.2019.

We  have noted  that the  statement of  claim  was  filed  on  6. 11. 18. The respondent’s  filed  the memorandum  of appearance  on 15. 11. 18 and thereafter  a request  for judgment  was filed  on 5. 12. 18. The statement  of defence  was filed  on 10. 12. 18.

Judgment  was entered  on 10. 12. 18, the same  day that  the statement  of defence  was filed.

The  Applicant/Respondent avers  that the  judgment  entered  was irregular since  there was  a defence  on record.

That the  Tribunal  has unfettered discretion  to  set  aside  interlocutory judgment  under  order  10 Rule  11 of Civil Procedure Rule. That the application  is brought  pursuant  to the right  of  hearing  as provided for under Section 1A and 1B Civil Procedure Act  and  Article 159 of the constitution.

That  the  claimant  failed  to serve  the respondent  with Notice  of Entry of  Judgment as required  under  Order  21 Rule  6  Civil Procedure Rule rendering  the subsequent  execution irregular,  null  and void.

That  it has been  held  in various  courts  that shutting  a litigant  from  the seat of  Justice  should  be a measure  of last resort.

The  applicant  has cited  various  authorities with prayers  that  the application  be allowed  as prayed.

The  respondent  in their  written  submissions have argued that the statutory  Period required to enter  appearance  and/or  file  defence  had lapsed, hence  it was  on this  basis  that judgment  was entered.

That  the respondent  was all  along  aware  of  the existence of  the suit.

That  the Principle  of exercise  of discretion should  not be  used  to assist  a litigant  who has deliberately  whether  by evasion or otherwise  sought  to obstruct  or delay  justice. The  respondent  has cited  various  authorities.

We  have carefully considered the submissions  of  the parties. We  note that  the defence   was filed  on the same  date  that the  judgment  was entered.

The  Tribunal  has discretion  to set  aside  on interlocutory  judgment as  laid  down  in PATEL VS  E.A CARGO HANDLING SERVICES  LTD(1974) EA 75; in  that  matter  it was  held  that there  are  no limits  or restrictions on the Judge’s  discretion  to set  aside  or  vary  an ex-parte  judgment  except  that  if he  does vary  the judgments, he does  so.  On such  terms  as may be  just. 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  it by  the rules.

In  this matter  we  note that  the defence  and the  interlocutory  judgment  are of the  same date.  The law  is clear  that  a judgment  in default  of appearance  or defence  cannot be entered in  a matter  where there  is a defence  on record.

We note  that the  judgment  and the  defence  being  on the same  date  brings  up  an issue  of irregularity  and  the same  can be  set aside  if a defendant  shows  that he was  a reasonable  defence  on merits. The  discretion  to set  aside  interlocutory  judgment should  be exercised   to ensure  that  injustice  or hardship would not be  visited against  any party.

Discretion  should  also  be exercised in a  way that  no party  is locked  out  of  any  proceedings  caused by accident,  inadvertence  or excusable  mistake  or error. It is in this regard  that we  consider  the facts  as laid  out by  the  parties  and the  record.  We have also  considered  that  any mistake  on the face  of the record  should  not  make  any party  to suffer  the penalty of having  his case  determined  in its  merit   as held  in PHILIP  KIPTOO  CHEMWOLO AND  ANOTHER  VS  AUGUSTINE  KUBENDE (1956) KLR 495.

It is for  the above  reasons  that  we accordingly  exercise  our jurisdiction to allow  the application  dated  6. 2.19 and  accordingly  order  as follows:-

1. Stay  of execution  of the judgment  and decree  issued on  27. 12. 18 and all consequential  orders  are hereby  set aside.

2.  The respondent  is granted  leave  to defend  this  suit  and the statement  of defence  filed  on  10. 12. 18 is accordingly  deemed  as duly  filed.

3.  Costs  in the cause.

Read and delivered in open court, this 7THof November2019

In the presence of:

Claimant:Miss Ndolo holding brief for Kiarie for the Claimant.

Respondent:Miss Gitau holding brief for Mr.Mwangi for Respondent.

Court Assistant: Leweri and Buluma

B.Kimemia               -          Chairman-signed

R.Mwambura          –          Member-signed

P.Swanya                 -          Member-signed