Fredrick Liondo v Tramom Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Limited [2021] KECPT 554 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 98 OF 2020

FREDRICK LIONDO......................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TRAMOM  COOPERATIVE SAVINGS

& CREDIT  SOCIETY  LIMITED...............................RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 2. 3.2020, the Claimant has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

1. That  the matter  be certified  as urgent  and be heard  exparte  in the first  instance;

2. Pending  the hearing and  determination  of this Application interparties, the Respondent  decision  communicated vide the  letter  dated 10. 2.2020 suspending  the Claimant  from the  position  of  Treasurer  and its  implementation  thereof, be stayed;

3. Pending  the hearing and  determination  of this claim, the Claimant  be compelled by a mandatory  injunction  to reinstate  the Claimant  to the position  of Treasurer for the  remainder  of his  unexpired  term;

4. That the costs of this Application  be  provided for.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit  sworn by  Claimant on  2. 3.2020. The Respondent  has  opposed  the Application vide  the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by the  Nickson  Isokha on 21. 9.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  27. 7.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant filed  her written submissions  on  1. 10. 2020 while  the Respondent filed  its initial  set of  submissions  on 26. 10. 2020 and  Supplementary  ones  on  12. 10. 2020.

Claimant’s  Contention

It’s  the  Claimant’s  case that  the Respondent  illegally and  unprocedurally  suspended  him as  its treasurer  on  10. 2.2020. That  the action  was taken  through  a purported  inspection  of his  personal  account. That  the committee  that purported to  have suspended  him was not  properly  constituted.  That clause  55  of the Respondent’s by –laws  only  envision. Two  scenarios where  the Claimant can be  suspended: the firstly,one is  vide the  Commissioner  of Co-operative  and  secondly, through  court  orders  in case of  offences involving  fraud  or dishonesty  or  through  a decision  of a majority  of the Board  members  for  failure to disclose  vested  interest.

Respondent’s  Case

The Respondent has opposed  the Application  on grounds  that the Claimant  was indeed  suspended  as a treasurer  on  10. 2.2020 by the Respondent’s Board vide  its  meeting  held on  8. 2.2020. That  the said  suspension  was informed  by the Report  of the Supervisory  Committee. That  the said  committee  had found  that the  Claimant  had abused  office.  That upon inspection  of his personal account, it emerged that the Claimant had misappropriated the Respondent’s  funds.

That  upon suspension  of the Claimant  an acting  treasurer  was appointed  to oversee  the smooth  running  of its  operations.

That further,  the instant  application  has been overtaken  by events  since  the Claimants  term  was due  to end by end of April,  2020.

Issues  for  determination

We have framed  the following  issues  for  determination:

a. Whether  the Claimant  has established  a proper basis  for  the grant  of an order  of  a mandatory  injunction;

b. Who  should meet  the costs  of the Application?

Mandatory  Injunction

As was held  in the case of  Kenya  Breweries  Limited  & Another  -vs- Washington O. Okeya [2002]eKLR.

“ A mandatory  injunction  ought  not to be  granted  in an interlocutory  Application  in the absence  of  special  circumstances  and then only  in clear  cases, either  where the  court thought  that the matter  ought to be decided  at once  or where  the  injunction  was directed  at a simple  and summary  act which  could be  easily  remedial  or where  the Defendants  had attempted  to steal a match  on the plaintiff. ..”

It is thus  manifest   that before  an order  of a mandatory  injunction  is made,  the Tribunal  must satisfy  itself  that there  exist  special  circumstances  and that the  standard  for doing  so is  much  higher  than that  applicable  in the case  of  a prohibitory  injunction.

A question  abound  as to whether the  instant application  has satisfied  this condition. The claimant’s borne of contention  is that  his process  of removal  was brought  and/or tainted with illegalities. That  the decision  to suspend  him was arrived  at without  due process  being  followed. That  the  supervisory  committee  which  recommended  his removal  was not  properly  constituted.

We have  perused   the letter  communicating  the Claimant’s  suspension  dated  10. 2.2020. We note that  the Claimant  was suspended  after  the Respondent’s Central Management  Committee  sat on  8. 2.2020.

Whilst  the Claimant  has question  the legality  of the composition  of the Supervisory  Committee, we note that  the ultimate decision  to suspend  the  Claimant  was made  by the Organ-mandated  by  the  by-laws  to do so. We therefore  find that the issue  as to  whether  or not  the process  was legal  or not is  a matter for full  hearing. We say so noting  that the Claimant  has also been accused  of  mishandling  the Respondents  finances.  These are  matters  to be determined  after  hearing  both parties  on merit.  They are not  matters to be  canvassed  at interlocutory  stage.

In simple terms, we  are  saying  that the Claimant  has  not  established  existence  of special  circumstances  to  warrant  the issuance  of an Order  of a mandatory  injunction.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  do not find  merit  in the Claimant’s  Application  dated 2. 3.2020 and hereby  dismiss  it with costs in the cause.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 4th  day of  March,  2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairperson                        Signed      4. 3.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama     Deputy Chairperson           Signed      4. 3.2021

B. Akusala                  Member                                Signed      4. 3.2021