Henry Mathembo Muindi (Chairman), Tom Olwe Aketch (Secretary) & Wilson Gitahi Muchoki (Treasurer) of CBET Matatu Owners Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Commissioner for Co-operative Development [2016] KEHC 229 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  576 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER  OF THE  1ST  SPECIAL  GENERAL MEETING    OF THE  CBET  MATATU  OWNERS  SAVINGS  AND  CREDIT   CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETY LIMITED  HELD ON  THE  29TH  AUGUST, 2016

AND

IN THE MATTER  OF THE  REFUSAL BY THE  COMMISSIONER FOR THE CO-OPERATIVE  DEVELOPMENT  TO RECOGNIZE  THE RESOLUTIONS  OF THE AGM  HELD ON  29TH AUGUST  206  TO ISSUE   A LETTER  OF INTRODUCTION FOR  OPENING  BANK ACCOUNT   AND  OFFICIAL SEARCH   ON  SACCO OFFICIALS

BETWEEN

HENRY MATHEMBO MUINDI (CHAIRMAN)

TOM OLWE AKETCH (SECRETARY)

WILSON GITAHI MUCHOKI (TREASURER) OF

CBET MATATU OWNERS SAVINGS AND CREDIT

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.............................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER FOR  CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT.......................................RESPONDENT

RULING No.2

1. This  court  has just delivered an expeditious Ruling  vacating  the orders of   this court   made  on 24th November  2016  and   25th November 2016  and  gave  reasons among others  that the exparte  applicants failed to disclose  to this court the fact  that they had a  dispute  pending before   the  Co-operative   Tribunal   with the interested   parties and   that the Co-operative  Tribunal  did  make an  adverse  order  against them on  10th November  2016   which order   was appealable  as of  right to  this court but instead the  exparte applicants  came to court, by way of Judicial Review and  omitted  the interested  parties   and obtained exparte orders which adversely  affected   the interested parties.

2. , that the applicants failed to disclose   that the  interested parties were in fact  in  office whether illegally  or legally, to  enable the court appreciate  the dispute   and  make an  informed  decision  and not  a per incuriam  decision.

3. This court having  so found, on the application  for leave  to appeal  and  for stay, which orders  are in the  discretion   of the court, the applicants  must satisfy the court   that they deserve  the  prayers sought.  The prayer for leave to appeal is said to be based on ‘abundant caution.’ “Abundant  caution’ is not a   ground upon  which this court  can  exercise its discretion  to grant  leave to appeal especially   where it  is crystal  clear that   the applicant   failed to  disclose   material facts  before this court thereby embarrassing  the court.

4. In the premises, I decline to grant leave to appeal as   no reasons have been supplied to the court.  On  the  prayer  for stay  of  today’s   orders, I find that  to stay those orders  is  tantamount   to regularizing  a  fraud  committed   in the face of this court   by the exparte   applicant’s  non disclosure  of  material facts.

5. This court, as earlier stated,  has  inherent   power  to vacate orders   made per  incuriam  and once   it does so, in the absence  of any  special circumstances it cannot stay its own orders.  Accordingly, I decline to grant any stay and proceed to dismiss   that prayer for stay.

6. On the issue of the  notice of motion being filed  in time,  I note that  the  applicant’s   counsel  Mr Ombwayo had his   copy   of the motion  filed on  1st December  2016.  It is   paid for vide receipt   No. 7965711 dated   28th November 2016.  However, the said   motion is not   in the court file and   I did allow Mr Ombwayo to peruse the court file to find out   for himself.  He could not find out for himself or trace any copy on the file.

7. For that reason, as it is not clear why the   motion though filed is not on record, the filed motion is deemed to be filed in time.  I have retained the copy held by Mr Ombwayo. The earlier order to the effect that there are no pending proceedings is hereby reviewed and set aside.

8. In the end, I dismiss the prayer for leave to appeal.  I also dismiss the prayer for stay.  I order that the exparte applicants pay costs to the interested parties.

Orders accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of December, 2016.

R.E.ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Omollo for the applicant interested parties

Mr Ombwayo for the exparte applicant

CA: Lorna

FURTHER ORDERS

The exparte applicant to serve the interested parties with the motion forthwith.  This matter shall be heard by way of oral submission.  The interested parties to file and serve their response within 10 days from to date. The applicant   to file and serve a further affidavit   if need be within 7 days from date of service.  Mention on 25th January   2017   to confirm  compliance and to fix a hearing date.  The applicant   to serve the respondent. Orders accordingly.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

20/12/2016