Francis Mutunga Nzomo v Telepost Sacco [2021] KECPT 500 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO. 257 OF 2020

FRANCIS  MUTUNGA  NZOMO ................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TELEPOST SACCO.................................................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 10. 9.2020, the Claimant has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

1. That  service  of this application  be dispensed  within  in the first  instance and the said  application be certified  urgent  and  heard  ex-parte ipso facto;

2. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  to strike  out the defence  filed herein  on  3rd  September  2020 with costs;

3.  That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to enter  judgment  in favour  of the claimant  against the  Respondent  in the sum  of Kshs.78,500/= together  with interest  and cost;

4.  That cost of this application be  borne  by the Defendants/Respondents.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the   Affidavit sworn by the Claimant on even  date and  a further  affidavit, again  sworn by  the claimant on  2. 11. 2020.

The Respondent has opposed the Application vide the  following  Affidavits:

a. Replying  Affidavit  sworn by, Samuel  Maumbe on 30. 10. 2020.

b. Replying Affidavit sworn  by the said  Samuel  Maumbe  on 11. 11. 2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  14. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant filed submissions as follows:

a. Initial  set of  submissions  on  15. 10. 2020;

b. Further  written  submissions  on9. 11. 2020.

The Respondent  filed  its  submissions   on 26. 1.2021.

Claimant’s  Case

Vide  the instant Application, the Claimant  wants  the Respondent’s statement  of Defence  filed on  3. 9.2020 be struck  of for being a  mere  denial.

Respondent’s Case

The gist  of the Respondent’s  opposition  to the Application  is that the Claimant  was paid  the sum due to him on  29. 11. 2005 vide cheque  No. 004688. That  he therefore  has  no claim  against  the Respondent.

Claimant’s  further  Affidavit

Vide  this Affidavit,  the Claimant  has refuted   the averments  made by the Respondent  vide its  Replying  Affidavit  sworn  on  30. 10. 20.

Respondent’s further Replying  Affidavit  sworn  on 11. 11. 2020

Vide  this Affidavit,  the Respondent  reiterates  the averments  made  vide its  Replying Affidavit.

Issues  for determination

The Claimant’s Application  has presented the following  issues  for determination :

a. Whether  the Claimant  has laid a proper  basis  to warrant  the striking out  of the Defence;

b. Who  should meet  the costs  of the Application?

Striking  out of  Defence

Striking  out of  a pleadings  a draconian  remedy  which  should  be exercised  with  abundant  caution. In the case of  Blue  Shield  Insurance Company  Limited – vs- Joseph  Mboya  Ogutu [2009]eKLR, the court  had this  to say  about striking  out of  pleadings:

“ The principles  guiding  the court  when considering  such an  Application  which  seeks  striking out  of a pleading  is now well settled.   Madan J. A(as he then was) in his  Judgment  in the case of  D.T. Dobie  and Company  (Kenya) Limited  - vs-  Muchina  [1982] KLR 1 [held  thus] “ The power to  strike out  should be  exercised  after  the court  has considered  all facts  but it must  not  embark  on the merits  of the case....The  power to  strike  out  any pleading  or any  part  of a pleading  under  this rule  is not mandatory; but  permissive  and confers  a discretionary  jurisdiction  to be exercised  having regard  to the quality  and all  circumstances  relating  to the offe.....pleadings”

In the case of  KCB –vs-  Suntra  Investment Bank  Limited [2015] eKLR, the court  gave  the policy  considerations  behind  striking  out of pleadings  in the following  terms:

“....that the  policy  considerations of the above approach  are that, 1) on one  hand,  a plaintiff  should not  be kept  away  from his judgment  by  unscrupulous  Defendant  who has filed  a Defence  which is a sham for the  purposes only of  temporizing  on the case  as long as  possible, and  2) on the other hand,  a defendant  who has Bonafide  issues  worth  of trial  should not  be denied   the opportunity to be heard  on his  defence  on merit  to enable  the court determine  the real issues in controversy completely that  is  serving  substantive  justice  on consideration  of all facts  of the case.”

We have extensively  quoted  the foregoing  decisions  so as to  lay bare the law  and guiding  principles  as far as striking  out of pleadings  is concerned. What  we discern  is that the remedy  is available  so as to  shield  the  plaintiff  from a Defendant  who has filed  unscrupulous  Defence  on the other  hand,  it’s meant  to shield  the Defendant  who has  a Bonafide  issue worth  trying from  being driven  out of the set of justice.

Coming  to the present  application,  the question  that we  ask ourselves is whether  the Claimant  has established  that the Defence  on record  is a sham. It is the  Claimant’s case  that the same  is a sham us the debt   has not been disputed.

On the  other hand,  the Respondent  contend  that the Claimant  has not  valid  claim against  it as  the Claimant  was paid  the sums due  way back  in the year,  2005.

From  these contrasting statements,  it  is apparent  that the Tribunal  will during trial, seek to establish  whether  or not the Claimant  was truly  paid the sums claimed. By  raising the issue of  refund  of deposits  in its defence, the Respondent  is not being  unscrupulous  or mischievous. It is  raising  a valid  point  worthy  of being  admitted  to trial.

Conclusion

With the  foregoing  observation  in mind, we do not  find merit  in the  Claimant’s Application  dated  10. 9.2020 and hereby  dismiss  it with costs  in the cause.

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

Maumbe  for the Respondent

Mention  on 24. 5.2021 for  directions

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      25. 3.2021