James Mwangi Githinji & 3 others v Peter Kamau Mwangi & Chai Savings & Credit Society Limited [2021] KECPT 511 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.509 OF 2013

JAMES  MWANGI  GITHINJI...........................................................1ST CLAIMANT

JAMES MWANGI  MBATIA..............................................................2ND CLAIMANT

GIBSON  MWAMBI MACHARIA.....................................................3RD CLAIMANT

PETER MACHARIA  GICHUNGU...................................................4TH CLAIMANT

VERSUS

PETER  KAMAU MWANGI.........................................................1ST  RESPONDENT

CHAI  SAVINGS  & CREDIT  SOCIETY  LIMITED ...............2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

The  2nd  Respondent  has moved  this Tribunal vide  the Application  dated  19. 8.2019 seeking  for the following Orders:

1. That this  suit as  filed against  the 2nd  Respondent  be dismissed  for want of  prosecution;

2. That the costs of  the suit and this Application  be  borne  by the Claimants.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit  sworn by  Mwambingu  Festus  Mwatee on even  date   (19. 8.2019). The Claimant  has  opposed  the Application vide  the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by the  1st Claimant  on  31. 8.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  14. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The 2nd Respondent  filed  its written submissions  on  8. 10. 2020 while  the 2nd  and 4th Claimants filed  theirs respectively on 12th  and  13th  October, 2020.

2nd  Respondent’s  Contention

Vide the  instant Application, the 2nd Respondent  contend that  a period  of  over one (1) year  has lapsed  since the  matter was last in court. That the  Claimants have failed to prosecute  the  matter and should  therefore  be  dismissed. That the last time  the matter  was  in court was on  19. 4.2018 when the Claimant’s  Application  dated 23. 10. 2013  was dismissed  for non- attendance.

Claimant’s  Case

Vide the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by the  1st Claimant on  31. 8.2020,  the Claimants have opposed  the instant Application  on the ground that  they have not  been indolent  on prosecuting  the claim. That  they were never  informed  by their  Advocate  on  record about the court proceedings of  8. 2.2018 and  19. 4.2018.

That  their previous  Advocate  on record died  thus making it difficult  for them to obtain  the physical  file from  his office.  That their  then advocate  on record never informed them about the status of their matter and that  had he  done so,  he would have attended court.  That the delay in prosecuting the matter is thus entirely to blame on their previous advocate  on record. That  it is  just and fair  for them to be granted  their day  in court.

Issues  for determination

We have  framed  the following  issues for determination:

a. Whether  the  2nd  Respondent  has laid a proper  basis  to warrant  the Tribunal  to dismiss  the claim  for want of prosecution.

b. Who should  meet the  costs  of  the application

Dismissal  of suit  for want of prosecution

We derive  jurisdiction  to dismiss  a suit  for want of  prosecution  from Order  17  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. Rule  (2) thereof  provides  thus:

“ 2  (1)  In any  suit  in which  no Application  has been made  or step  taken by either  party,  for one year,  the court may  give Notice  in writing  to the parties  to show cause  why the suit should  not be dismissed, and  if cause  is not shown,  to its satisfaction,  may  dismiss the suit.

2 (3)  Any party  to the  suit may apply  for its dismissal  as provided  in sub- rule 1”

As  regards the parameters  to be  considered  before dismissing  a suit for  want of prosecution, we  refer  to  the decision  of the court in  the case of  I Vita – vs-  Kyumbu[1984] KLR 44 in  the  pertinent  part,  the court  (Chesoni J)  held thus:

“ The test  is whether  the delay  is  prolonged and inexcusable,   if it is,  can justice  be done  despite  such delay?”

The court  restated  this  position  in the case of Mwangi  Nedangi  S. Kimenyi – vs-  A.G & Anotheras follows:

“ 1.  When  the delay  is  prolonged  and inexcusable, such that  it would  cause grave  injustice  to the one side,  or the other or both,  the court may, in its discretion, dismiss  the action  straight away.  However,  it should  be understood  that prolonged  delay alone should not  prevent  the court from  doing justice  to the parties- the  plaintiff, the defendant  and any other  third  or interested  party in the  suit,  lest justice  should be placed  too far away  from the parties.

2 invariably,  what should  matter to the court is  to serve  substantive  justice  through  judicious  exercise  of discretion  which should be  guided  by the following issues:

1.  Whether  the delay  has been intentional  and contumelious;

2. Whether  the delay  or conduct  of the plaintiff  amounts  to  an abuse  of  the court;

3. Whether  the delay  is inordinate and inexcusable;

4. Whether  the delay  is one that gives  rise to a substantial risk to fair  trial in that it is not possible  to have a fair  trial  of issues  in action or causes  or likely  to cause  serious  prejudice  to the defendant; and

5. What  prejudice  will the dismissal cause  to the plaintiff. By  this test,  the court is  not  assisting  the indolent but  rather  it is serving  the  interest of  justice,  substantive justice  on behalf  of all the parties.”

The court  in the case of  Sky view  Properties  Limited  &  Another  - vs-  Kennedy  Amos  Njoroge &  3 others [2017] eKLR summarized  these tests  at paragraph  12  as follows:

“ There  are three questions  to  be answered  in this Ruling. The first question  is whether  the delay is  inordinate.  The second  question  is whether  the delay  is inexcusable. The  third question  is whether  justice  can still be  achieved  if this suit  were to be sustained.”

We  also  stop  here  and pause  the three questions  paused by the court  in the Sky view Properties  Case above. It is  clear from  the record  that from  19. 4.2018,  the Claimants  have not taken any  step to prosecute  the matter.  The delay  is over  2 years. The claim  therefore qualifies  to be dismissed  for  want of prosecution  in terms  of  Order  17  Rule  2  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules.

As regards,  the excuse  preferred  by the Claimants for delay  in prosecution  of the claim, we find  the same to be unconvincing. Whilst  the Claimants had  instructed  a lawyer  to act  on behalf of  them on the  matter, they had the residual  duty  of  regularly  ascertaining  the status  of  their  matter.

Whilst  it may be  the case that  their  advocate  on record  died  on 12. 6.2019 (which  contention is  not backed  by evidence) the Claimants have not given  justifiable  reasons  why  they did not  take steps  to move forward  their matter.  We say  so noting that  the Claimants  never  attended  court  for any session  once they filed  the claim and  their Application  dated  23. 10. 2013. Every  time the  Application  came up for hearing,  they were absent.  This  culminated  into  the  dismissal  of the same  for  non- attendance  on  19. 4.2018.

Now  turning to the  issue  of whether  justice  can still  be  done irrespective  of the delay, we have perused  the  statement  of claim  and note that  the Claimant’s case  revolve around  monies  deducted  from them  by  the 2nd  Respondent in a bid  to  recover  a loan of Kshs. 360,000 advance  to the 1st  Respondent  against  their  guarantorship. They  have disputed  ever  guaranteeing  this amount. Their  case  is that they only  guaranteed  Kshs.16,000/=. We thus  are of  the view  that it will be in  the interests  of  justice and  fairness  for the issue  of  guarantorship to be determined on  merits. This will  enable the Claimants  to know  the  extent  of their exposure to the  2nd  Respondent.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we disallow  the  2nd  Respondent’s Application. We also direct the Claimants to prosecute  their claim  within  six (6) months  herein failure  to which  the claim will  stand dismissed  without  further reference  to the Tribunal.  The Claimants to bear  the  costs of the  Application  assessed  at  Kshs.10,000/=.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 7th day of  January,  2021.

Hon. F. Terer    Deputy Chairman Signed  7. 1.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki   Member    Signed  7. 1.2021

Mr. B. Akusala    Member   Signed  7. 1.2021

In the presence  of  Mr. Kariuki for 2nd and 4th Claimants

Miss. Wangui  holding brief  for the  Saemi  2nd  Respondent.

Court clerk  Maina

Hon. F. Terer    Deputy Chairman Signed  7. 1.2021