Jacob Kyalo Matingi v Muka Mukuu Farmers Co-operative Society Limited & Simon Kangiri Mutema [2020] KECPT 111 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 418 OF 2017

JACOB KYALO MATINGI...................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

MUKA MUKUU FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY LIMITED...................1ST RESPONDENT

SIMON KANGIRI MUTEMA...2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

What is before us for consideration and determination are the following Applications by the 1st Respondent;

The application dated 27. 6.2019, and

The application dated 17. 2.2019.

The Application  dated 17. 2.2019 is spent as it sought stay orders pending the hearing and determination of the Application dated 27. 6.2019.

We will thus consider and determine the Application dated 27. 6.2019.

Application  dated  27. 6.2019

This Application  seeks  for orders  inter alia:

That  the application  be certified  as urgent  and heard  exparte  in the first instance;

That the Honorable  Tribunal be pleased  to stay execution  of part of  the Judgment  and Consequential  Orders  delivered  on 4th October, 2018 to costs  only pending  the hearing  and determination  of the application;

That the Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to review  the exparte Judgment  and  Consequential  Orders  made on  4th  October, 2018 dismiss  the claim  for want of  jurisdiction ;

That  in the alternative,  the Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to review  its Judgment  and Consequential  Orders thereto  delivered on 4th  October, 2018 by  exempting  or discharging  the 1st Respondent  from paying  costs  of the claim; and

That  the costs  of this application be  provided for.

The Application  is supported  by the grounds  on  its  face  and the Affidavit  sworn  by Peter  Mulili on  even, date that is  27. 6.2019.

Vide  the said  Application,  it is the Claimant’s  case that  the judgment  entered  against  it on  4. 10. 2018 is null  and void  ab initio  as  the Tribunal  lacked  jurisdiction  to entertain  the suit  in  in the first  place.  That the Tribunal  proceeded  to award  costs  to the Claimant  without specifying  who was  responsible  to meet such  costs.  That  from  the pleadings  filed, it was  apparent  that the claimant did not have a cause of action against it (the Respondent). That  it’s attempt  to have  its  name struck  out  was  thwarted  by the Tribunal  when it  declined  to  allow it  file a defence  out of time.

The Claimant  has opposed  the application  by filing  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by Jacob  Kyalo  Matingi  on 17. 9.2019. Vide  this Response  the Claimant  contend that  the  1st Respondent  is precluded from raising  the issue  of jurisdiction  at   the  execution stage  as the same  is  time barred. That  this Tribunal  has jurisdiction  by dint of section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act(Cap 490) Laws  of Kenya to entertain the dispute.

That as regards the issue of cause of action, the Claimant contend that the Respondent is the custodian of the suit property and that it has a duty to transfer the same to him.

That as regards the issue of costs, the same is a matter of discretion for the tribunal.

Written submissions

Vide the directions given on 22/01/2020, the Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The 1st Respondent filled its submissions on 31/01/2020 while the Claimant did so on 6/02/2020.

Vide his submissions, the 1st  Respondent contend that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit by dint of section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act and that it is only the Environment and Land Court which possess the said jurisdiction. He referred to the cases of:

PAUL MUTUA MUTWIWA  VERSUS KIMEU KYUMBU & TWO OTHERS [2014] eKLR

TORATIO NYANG’AU AND 4 OTHERS VERSUS LIETEGO FCS LIMITED (2011) eKLR

SEVEN SEAS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VERSUS ERIC CHEGE (2014) eKLR

D.T.DOBIE AND COMPANY LIMITED  VERSUS MUCHINA (1982) KLR and

CECILIA KARURU NGAYU VERSUS BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA AND ANOTHER (2016) eKLR

On his part, the Claimant, vide his written submissions contend, that the 1st Respondent has not satisfied the laid down principles for review and/or setting an ex parte Judgment. That the 1st Respondent  does not  state whether it has discovered  a new and important  matter or that  there was an  error  apparent  on the face of  the record. That  the  dispute  herein  is within  the jurisdiction  of the Tribunal  as provided  for  in section  76  of the Act.  That the dispute  is not  about ownership  of land but  rather  allocation  of property  from share  number  242 and member  number  241.  That section  81 of the Co-operative Societies Act (Cap  490) provides  that the  High  Court  is an Appellate  Court  for  purposes  an Appeal  against  the decision  of the  Tribunal.

Issues  for Determination

We have framed  the following  issues for determination:

Whether  the 1st Respondent  has laid a  proper basis  to warrant  the Tribunal  to Review and/or  set aside  the judgment  delivered  on  4. 10. 2018;

Who should  meet  the  cost of the Application.

Review  of the Judgment

This Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to Review  its judgment  and/or orders  by dint  of section  80 of the Civil  Procedure  Act  (Cap 21) Laws  of Kenya or order 45  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. Order  45 Rule  (1) (a) and (b) provide  thus:

“ Any  person considering  himself  aggrieved –

By a decree  or order  from  which  an Appeal  is allowed,  but from  which no  Appeal  has been  preferred,

By a decree  or order  from which  no Appeal  is  hereby allowed,

and  who from  the discovery  of new  and important matter or evidence  which,  after  the exercise  of due diligence, was  not within  his knowledge  or could not  be produced  by him  at the  time  when  the decree  was passed  or the order  made, or  on account  of some mistake  or  error apparent  on the face of  the  record,  or for any other  sufficient  reason,….. may apply  for a review  of judgment  to the court  which passed  the decree  or made  the order  without  unreasonable  delay.”

It thus  follows  that for  a  judgment  to be  reviewed,  the  following  conditions  must  be  satisfied;

That there  is discovery  of new and important  matter  or evidence;

There is  a mistake  or error  apparent  on the  face of  the record; and

For  sufficient  reason.

The question  that arises  is whether  the  instant Application  satisfies  these  conditions. It  is  the  1st  Respondent’s case  that  the Tribunal  did not have jurisdiction  to entertain  the matter  as  the issues  in dispute  related  to ownership  of  land and that  the only court  vested  with  jurisdiction  to determine  the same is  the Environment  and Land Court (ELC).

On its  part,  the Claimant  contend  that the Claimant  does  not meet  the threshold  set out  in order  45  Rule  1 (a) and (b) above and  that the Application  should be  dismissed  with costs.

The background  to  this Application  is that  the Claimant  sued  the Respondents  vide  a statement  of claim  dated 6. 6.2017. Both  Respondents  did not  enter  appearance  or file a  Response  within the  time limited  by Law. The matter  was  set down  for formal  proof.

When the  1st Respondent  learnt  about the  existence  of the suit, it  filed  an Application  dated  25. 9.2017.  The said  Application  sought  leave to be allowed  to  defend  the claim.  The said  Application  was heard  and dismissed  on 11. 12. 2017.

We  have  perused  paragraph  7 of  the  statement  of  Response  to the claim  dated 24. 7.17, and  filed  on  26. 7.2017. The said  Response  was  annexed  to the  Application  dated  25. 9.17.  At paragraph  7 thereof, the  1st Respondent  has admitted  the jurisdiction  of this Tribunal  to entertain  the claim.

Upon  dismissal  of the said  Application on (11. 12. 17),  the  1st Respondent  kept  quiet  until  28. 6.2019 when it filed  the instant  Application.

Coming  back  to the  conditions  for Review  of a judgment,  it is  the  1st Respondent’s  gravamen  that this  Tribunal  did  not have  jurisdiction  to entertain  the suit  in  the  first  place. We find  that this  contention  does not  satisfy  any of  the  Principles  for setting  aside  a judgment.  We have perused the proceedings in the  file and especially  the said  judgment  and note that  the issue  of jurisdiction  is not  an error  apparent  on the face of  the record.  It is a  substantive  point  of  law which  cannot be canvassed by way  of a Review. The best  forum  it would have  been for  the  1st Respondent  to pursue  its  Right  of being heard  on merits  by either  moving  the Tribunal  for Review  of the Ruling delivered   on 11. 12. 2017 or  Appealing  against  the Ruling  altogether.

We say  so taking  into account  the fact  that the  Claimant  had expressly  admitted  the jurisdiction  of the Tribunal  to ascertain  this claim  vide its  statement  of Response  filed  on 26. 7.2017.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  do not find  merit  in the  1st Respondent’s  Application  dated 27. 6.2019 and hereby  dismiss  it with costs  to the Claimant.

Read and delivered in accordance with the guidelines issued by  the Hon. Chief Justice  on 15. 3.2020, this 9thday of April, 2020.

Prepared by Hon. B.Kimemia Chairman, Hon. F. Terer Deputy Chairman, P. Gichuki Member.

With consent  of the parties, the  final orders  to be delivered  by email, as accordance  to the prevailing  measures  during  the covid-19.

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairman               Signed      9. 4.2020

Hon. F. Terer                 Deputy Chairman      Signed      9. 4.2020

P. Gichuki                      Member                       Signed      9. 4.2020