Frankline Muthomi Njogu v National Hospital Insurance Fund Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 242 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.482 OF 2020

FRANKLINE  MUTHOMI  NJOGU..................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL  HOSPITAL  INSURANCE  FUND

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

RULING

1.  The Application  for  determination  is  for striking  out the Respondent’s  defence.

The Application  is dated  19. 2.2021  and  is brought  under  Section 1A, 1B  and  3A Civil Procedure Act Cap  21  and Order  51  Rule  1 Civil Procedure  Rules, Order  36  Rule  (1) (1)and  all other  enabling  provisions  of the law.

The Application  seeks for the following  Orders:

a. That  this Honorable  court be pleased to strike  out the  Respondent’s  defence  herein  dated 12th  January  2021 and order  that judgment  be entered  in favour  of the Claimant  against  the  Respondent  as prayed  for in the Statement  of Claim  plus costs  and  interest  thereof.

b. That the Respondent  to pay  costs  of this  Application.

c. That  the Honourable  court be  pleased  to issue  any other  relief  that it  may deem  fit.

2. The same is  premised  on the grounds  on the face  of  the Application  and  supported  by Affidavit  of Frankline  Muthomi  Njogu sworn  on 19. 2.2021 to which  he averred  that the  evidence  the  Applicant  has adduced  through  his list  of documents  dated  30. 11. 2020filed on 8. 12. 2020  clearly  shows  he has  a strong  case  against  the Respondent.

The  Respondent Statement  of Defence  is a sham and is aimed   at delaying  the course  of justice  as  it is  founded  on more denials. The Respondent  in his  defence  has not denied  the Applicant  has contributions  with them and  that  he did  notify  the Respondent  of his intention  to  withdraw from the society vide  a letter  dated 15. 7.2020.

The only  base of  contention  is that  the Respondent  claims  there is  share capital  which  ought  not  to be  refunded  and Applicant  therefore  prays  for Summary  Judgment against  the Respondent.

The Respondent  on their  part filed a  Replying  Affidavit  dated  30. 4.2021  sworn  by Sophy  B. Otiu to which  Respondent  stated their defence  is in no  way  scandalous,  frivolous, vexatious  or unintelligible. The  defence  raised ought  to be heard  on merit  at  trial.

Parties  were directed  to file written submissions  to  dispose  off the  Application.

The Claimant/Applicant  filed  their submissions  dated  7. 6.2021  on 8. 6.2021 and Respondent  filed their  written submissions  dated  15. 6.2021 on even date  which  have been  taken  into consideration.

3.  Analysis

Order  13    Rule  2  Civil Procedure  Rules  2010 clearly  state

“ Any  party  may  at any stage  of a suit,  where  admission  of facts  has been  made, either  on the pleadings  or otherwise, apply  to the court  for such judgment  or order  as upon  such  admissions he may be entitled  to, without  waiting  for the determination  of any  other  question between  the parties ; and the  court may  upon such  application  make such order,  or give  such judgment,  as the court  may think  just. “

The Claimant/ Applicant  submits that  the Respondent  in paragraph  3  of their  defence  admits  that the  Claimant  shares  are  Kshs.795,000/= less  share membership  capital  of Kshs.  20,500/=. They  stated  the case should  be determined  summarily.

The  Respondent  on the other  hand submitted  the law governing  striking  out of  pleadings  is founded  in Order 2  Rule  15  Civil Procedure  Rules 2010 which states :

“ (1) at any  stage  of the proceedings  the court  may order  to be struck  out or amended  any pleading  on the grounds  that:

a. It  discloses  no reasonable  cause  of action  or defence  in law; or

b. It is scandalous, frivolous  or vexatious; or

c. It may  prejudice , embarrass  or delay  the fair  trial  of the action; or

d. It is  otherwise  an abuse  of the process  of the court;”

They  stated  the Claimant seeks  for Kshs. 817,000/= which  is disputed however, the Respondent did not plead  any  liabilities  against  the Claimant.

This is  a matter  for refund,  and it’s  clear  that the Claimant  was  making  contributions  as per  the Statement  of Account.

The issues  to be determined  are:

Issue  One:

Does the  defence  raise  triable  issues ?

ISSUE  ONE

A cursory  perusal  of  the  Respondent’s defence  shows  a defence  that is purely  full of  denials. By that  fact  alone they offer  nothing  else  but  a defence  for the Respondent.

The principle  that guide  the court  in determining  whether  to strike  out a  pleading  were set  out in  the case of :

“  DT Dobie  &  company  (Kenya)  Limited – vs-  Joseph  Mbaria  Muchina  and Another  CA  37  of  1978 [1980]eKLR.

Madan  JA  stated:

“...the court  ought  to act  very cautiously and carefully  and consider  all facts  of the case  without  embarking  upon  a trial thereof,  before  dismissing  a case  for not disclosing   a reasonable  case of action  on being  otherwise  an abuse   of the process  of the court.....”

The case  by Respondent  in their  submissions

Transcend  Media  Group Limited  - vs-  IEBC[2015] eKLR court held:

“... striking  out of a  case  and  in the process,  deprive  a  party  of the opportunity  to present  their case  has  been held  over and  over  the years  to be a  draconian  measure which  ought  to be  eyed  only  as a last resort and even  the only in the  clearest  of  case.”

We  note that  this is a clear  case where  the Claimant  made  monthly  contributions  which are  now claimed  and due.  The Respondent  filed  written  submissions  in the matter  as ordered.  The only  issue raised  in the defence is the deductible amounts (non-refundable) Kshs.20,500/=.

The Respondent  did not file  any  documents  with the Replying Affidavit  to  show  that the  Claimant  has any  liabilities  in terms of  guarantorship or loans.  The defence  therefore  amounts  to a mere  denial  and the  only issue raised  is the non- refundable  amount  of Kshs.20,500/= .

We therefore  allow  the Application  dated  19. 2.2021  in the following  terms:

1.  Judgment is entered  in favour  of the Claimant  against the Respondent for Kshs.759,000/= less  Kshs.20,500/= total Kshs. 738,500/= plus  costs  and  interest  in the  suit from the  date  of judgment/Ruling.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021

HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021

MR. GITONGA KAMITI MEMBER SIGNED 29. 7.2021

TRIBUNAL CLERK CHARLES MAINA

MISS KEMUNTO ADVOCATE FOR CLAIMANT: PRESENT

OMANGI GICHANE ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : PRESENT

HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021