Irene Wangari Muthoni v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited [2021] KECPT 531 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.347 OF 2019

IRENE WANGARI  MUTHONI.................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

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

RULING

1. The Claim for determination is dated 21. 6.2019 filed on 28. 6.2019. The  prayers  sought  therein  are:

a. Kshs.5,000,000/= plus  interest  from 11. 7.2017 upto  the time  of filing  suit  at  court  rates,  interest  at court  rates  from the  date of  filing  suit until  payment  in full.

b. Damages  for breach  of contract  plus  interest  at court rates.

c. Costs  of this  suit plus  interest  at court rates.

2. The Respondent  filed a Statement  of Defence  dated  and filed  on  23. 7.2019 and Reply  to  Defence  filed on  30. 7.2019.

Respondent  filed  submissions  on  20. 11. 2020 while  Claimant  filed submissions on 17. 11. 2020.

The matter proceeded  for hearing on 10. 3.2020.

CW1 Irene  Muthoni  who adopted  her witness statement  dated 21. 6.2019 as her evidence  in chief and further  produced  her list  of documents as exhibits No. 1-13 and closed  her case.

The matter  came up  for Defence hearing  on  11. 11. 2020 and the  Respondent  indicated  that they  would not  be calling  any witnesses and closed  their case.

Parties  were ordered  to  file written submissions. The  Claimant  filed their  submissions  on 17. 11. 2020.

3. The gist  of the matter  is that the  Agreement  of the  parties  by sale  Agreement  of  parties  dated 23. 9.2017 the  Claimant agreed  to sell and  Respondent agreed  to sell  land parcel  plot No. 4  out of LR/Nyeri Municipality/6384/4 at the purchase  price of  Kshs.5,000,000/=.

That she paid  the full purchase  price which  was acknowledged  by Respondent  within  the stipulated  period  of  240  days  after  execution.

That  it was  also a  condition  of the said Sale Agreement that vendor was  to  handover  vacant  possession  upon  full payment of purchase price and transfer was to be  undertaken  by the vendor’s  Advocate.

That  the Respondent  failed,  neglected  and  or  refused  to perform  their part  of their  agreement  ready to  breach  of  contract that she  was now  claiming  to  refund  of 5 Million from the Respondent plus interest  from 11. 9.2017 to the time  of  filing  suit and  thereafter  at court  rates.

4. The Respondent  in their  submissions  aver that  the Claimant  was aware  that the Respondent  was buying  land and  thereafter  calls for  purchase  of commitment  of plots  from members  after which  the said  land is  subdivided.

That the land in question is paid  up in full. When  the plots are not  fully sold  to pave way  for subdivision and title  processing.

That the  Respondent  fully  intends  to complete  the transaction  and transfer  property to  Claimant  hence  the issue  of  repayment  does not  arise  as the same  was used  to pay  the original  owner  of the land and   Respondent  is not  in a position  to  refund and  instead  members  were advised  to other  projects  incase  they were  dissatisfied  with the  current  act.

5. It is  therefore  demonstrated  that  the Respondent is not in breach  of said  Agreement  and suit  is premature and should be  dismissed  with costs.

We have  carefully  considered  the evidence  on records,  documents  and pleading  and submissions  of parties. We  note the sale Agreement  dated 23. 9.2019 in which  the parties  agreed  on a  purchase  price  of 5 Million  for the  ¼ acre  piece of land  out  of LR. NO Nyeri Municipality 6384/4 the  completion  period  was 240  days  after  execution  of Sale Agreement.

It is  not denied  by the Respondent that  the claimant  did  fully  pay for the  purchase price  within  the  240 days. The  evidence  on record  is that  after  Claimant  met all  the conditions  the Respondent  did not  perform  their  obligations  as per  contract  of sale  to transfer  plot  Number 4  to Claimant.

6. We note  that the Respondent  in their  submissions  averred  the land  in question was  not fully  paid  up.

In the  contract  we note  that the  Respondent was  a beneficial owner  of the land  parcel  Title No. Nyeri Municipality /6384/4 clause  b  indicates  that “ the vendor  has caused  and or  is  in the process  of causing  the land  to be demonstrated  into  plots….” and  clause  Claimant  “the vendor  has offered the Plaintiff  has accepted  to purchase  all  that plot No. 4. ”

It is  therefore  not proper  for the Respondent  to submit  that  the Claimant  was to  wait  until  all the plots  are fully  sold  to pave way  for sub division  and title  processing.

It is  also not  proper  for  Respondent  to submit  that the issue  of refund  does not arise  since  the purchase  price has been used to pay  owner of the land and  that  the Respondent  is not  in a position  to refund and instead  that  the Claimant  should  transfer  to other  projects  incase  they are not  satisfied.

7. We note  that parties  are bound  by the  terms  of their  contract  hence  the issue  of  transfer  to  other  projects does  not arise  since  the  contract  between  the parties  has not  been varied.

We note the terms  of contract  as afore sighted  indicate  Respondent  is the beneficial  owner of  the party  in  question  to utilize  it  awaiting  registration  in  its name.

The Respondent  had the duty  to perform  its obligation  within  the period  agreed  upon  by  the parties.

A suit  was filed  on  28. 6.2019 over  24 months after  execution  of the Sale Agreement.

8. It is clear  that  the completion  period  had  expired  without  the vendor/ Respondent having  fulfilled  its obligations under  the contract  of sale.

The question  therefore  would be  what  remedy  does  the Claimant have?

The Claimant  in the statement  of claim  sought  for a refund  of the purchase  price of  5 million  plus interest.

We therefore  enter  judgment  in favour  of  the claimant  against  the  Respondent  for Kshs.5 Million plus  interest.

From  June  2018 (date  of expiry  of the completion  period  of  240 days)  till  payment in full and  interest  at court  rates  from date  of filing suit and  damages  for breach  of contract  plus  costs and interests.

9. As  discussed  above  the  Respondent  clearly  renaged its  obligations  to transfer  the party  plot  No.  4  as agreed  to date  that is,  4  years  down  the line.

Even though  the Respondent  avers  that the suit is  premature  we find  that the  Claimant  is within  her rights  after the  completion  period  expired  to seek for a refund.

We accordingly order  for the refund  of  Kshs.5,000,000/= and interest  from date  of filing suit.

On the  issue of  damages for breach  of  contract  we note that  despite  having pleaded  damages  for breach  of contract  the  claimant did  not  quantify the claim for damages for breach  of contract  to unable us assess the  quantum. The  prayer for damages fails.

We award  NILdamages for breach  of contract.

Costs  follow  the cause  and  we award  costs  to the Claimant.

In summary  the claimant  succeeds  in her  claim  for:

a. A refund  of 5 Million  plus  interest  from  August  2018 till payment  in full at  Tribunal  rates.

b. Plus costs of  the suit.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson                Signed      27. 5.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson  Signed      27. 5.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki   Member                       Signed      27. 5.2021

Tribunal Clerk    Leweri.

Waweru  Macharia  for Claimant present

Miss Gitau  for Respondent  present

Miss Gitau for Respondent:I  pray  for  30 days  stay  of execution

Waweru  Macharia  for Claimant:They can get  14 days.

Order:21 days  stay  of execution  granted.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  27. 5.2021