James Mweri Kahunyo, George Abong, George Onyara, Wycliffe Ogal, Charles Olungah, Joseph Esau & Salome Muchere v Commissioner for Co-operative Development [2021] KECPT 571 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

MISC. APPL. TRIBUNAL CASE NO.11 OF 2019

JAMES  MWERI KAHUNYO...................................................................1ST CLAIMANT

GEORGE  ABONG....................................................................................2ND CLAIMANT

GEORGE  ONYARA..................................................................................3RD CLAIMANT

WYCLIFFE  OGAL...................................................................................4TH CLAIMANT

CHARLES  OLUNGAH.............................................................................5TH CLAIMANT

JOSEPH  ESAU...........................................................................................6TH CLAIMANT

SALOME  MUCHERE...............................................................................7TH CLAIMANT

VERSUS

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

RULING

What  is before  us for consideration  and determination  is the  1st – 7th  Applicants  Misc. Application  dated 10. 9.2019. It seeks  for Orders  inter alia:

1. Spent;

2. That this Tribunal  be pleased  to grant leave  to the  Applicants to Appeal  out of time against the surcharge Orders  made by the Commissioner for  Co-operative  Development on 19. 6.2018;

3. That  pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application,  this Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to grant a temporary  injunction  restraining  the Respondent  by  themselves, their agents and/or  employees or whomsoever is acting  on their behalf  from executing  a surcharge  against  the applicants for honoraria  they earned  in respect  of years 2013,  2014 and 2015;

4. That pending  the hearing  and determination  of this appeal, this Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to grant a temporary  injunction  restraining the Respondent  by themselves, their agents and/or  employees or whomsoever is acting  on their behalf  from executing  a surcharge  against  the Applicants for honoraria they  earned  in respect  of years 2013, 2014 and 2015; and

5. That costs be in  the cause.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit sworn by the   1st Claimant on even  date (10. 9.2019).Despite service,  the Respondent  did not respond to it. Owing to the  nature  of the Application, we directed  the Applicants to file their written  submissions  on 6. 8.2020. They  did so  on  3. 9.2020.

Applicant’s Case

Vide the instant Application,  the Applicants  contend  that the Respondent  issued a surcharge  Order  against  them on 19. 6.2018.  That in terms of section  73 (1) of the Co-operative  Societies  Act,  they had  30  days to Appeal against  the said decision. That the said  time has elapsed. That  delay  in filing  the Appeal  was  occasioned  by the following:

a. That the Applicants firstly  originated  the dispute  in the  High Court  vide JR. MISC.NO. 279/18. That  vide a Ruling  delivered  by Hon. Justice  Mativo on  5. 9.2019the High Court  dismissed  the Application  on account  of the fact that  the  Applicants  had not exhausted  available  mechanisms for resolving  the dispute.

b. That  the Applicants  then filed  CTC.NO.  260/19 which  was again dismissed  for  lack of jurisdiction on  22. 8.19.

That the reason  why the Applicants did not  Appeal  within the time limited  by law  is that they  were held  up in other  courts  over the same  subject  matter.

Written submissions

Vide their  written  submissions  filed  on 3. 9.2020,  the Applicant’s  reiterated  their contentions  above.  They also  cited  the decision  of the court  in the case  of the owners of the Motor  Vehicle  Vessel  Lilian”s” –vs-  Caltex  oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR and  submitted  that  we  have jurisdiction  to enlarge  time within which  to lodge an Appeal.  They also referred  to the provisions  of section  76  of the  Co-operative  Societies Act. They further  cited the decision  of the courts  in the cases  of  Council of Civil  service union  - vs-  AC  374  at  40  and Anisminic – vs -  Foreign  Compensation  Commission[1969] I AII ER 208  at   233.

The Applicants  have also  submitted  that they  have  an  arguable  Appeal  and cited  the holding  of the court   at the case of  Francis  Gichohi  &  Another – vs-  Baragwi Fames  Co-operative  Society  Limited [2015] eKLR.

Further  they  submitted  on the Tribunal’s  jurisdiction  to extend  time and cited the case of First  American  Bank  of Kenya  Limited  - vs-  Galab P.Shah & 2others–Nairobi(Milimani) H.C.C.NO.2258/2000[2003] EA 65.

We  will consider  the foregoing  arguments  whilst  determining  the issues raised by the Application  below.

Issues  for determination

This  miscellaneous  Application  has  presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  this Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to enlarge time within  which  a party  may Appeal against  a surcharge  Order;

b. What  Orders  are  available  in the circumstances?

Appeal  against  surcharge  Orders

As was  correctly held  by the court  in the celebrated  in the case case of  Motor  Vessel  Lilian” s”  - vs-  Caltex  Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR,   jurisdiction  is  everything  and without  it, the court downs its tools. This position  was underscored  by the  Supreme  Court  of Kenya  in the Matter of  Advisory  opinion  of the Supreme  Court  under Article  63 (3) of the Constitution- Constitutional  Application No. 2  of 2011  in the  following  terms:

“  The Lilian”s” Case [1989] KLR1 establishes  that jurisdiction  flows from the law,  and  the recipient  court  is to apply  the same with any limitation’s  embodied  therein. Such  a court  may  not arrogate to itself  jurisdiction  through  a  craft  interpretation  or by  way of  endeavors’  to discern  or  interpret  the intention  of parliament,  where  the wording  of legislation  is  clear  and there is  no ambiguity.”

We associate  ourselves  with the  holding  of the supreme  court  in its Advisory  opinion above  and  state that indeed,  our  jurisdiction  flows from the law and  in this case,  the Co-operative  Societies  Act  (cap 490) laws  of Kenya  and the Rules  made thereunder.

As far as  Appeals  against  surcharging  Orders  is concerned, Section  74 (1) of this Act  provides thus:

“ Any  person aggrieved  by an  Order  of the Commissioner  under section  73 (1)  may, within 30 days  Appeal  to the Tribunal.”

This Tribunal  ( separately  constituted) has consistently  interpreted  and applied  this provision in  many of its decisions to mean  that once  the 30 days period lapses, there is  no room  for enlargement of time.  One of such  decisions is  the CTC.NO.91/2004 others are:

a. Butere  Teachers  Savings  & Credit  society  Limited  - vs-  Andrea  Kechala; CTC.NO.8/2005;

b. Butere Teachers  Savings  and credit  Sacco society  Limited  - vs-  Aggrey  Osiyei  CTC.NO.9/2005;

c. Kakamega  teachers  Sacco  Society  Limited  - vs-  Joshua  Aura  Lutomia CTC.NO. 13/2006

d. Kibirigwi Farmers’  Co-operative  society  Limited – vs-  Peter Kiro, CTC.NO. 74/2004 ; and

e. Kakamega Teacher’s  Sacco – vs-  M. Aganyanya,  CTC.NO. 33/2006

In  Kibirigwi  Farmers’  Co-operative  Society  Limited –vs-  Jacob  Mwangi,  CTC.NO.  91/2004,  the Tribunal  held thus:

“ The only  way surcharging  Order  can be  challenged  in this Tribunal  is on Appeal  under section  74  of  the Act,  which  must be filed  within  30 days.  There is  no provision  for  enlargement of time.”

The current  Application  is indifferent. The Applicants  wants  us to  enlarge  time  to Appeal  against  surcharge Orders  issued  on 19. 6.2018. Their  main excuse  is that they  erroneously  instituted  the claim   in a wrong form and therefore  ended  up  being referred  to the Tribunal  while  the window period  for filing  the Appeal  had lapsed. Ignorance  of the law  can  never be  a Defence.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that  we find  that  we do not  have jurisdiction  to entertain  this Application  and hereby  proceed to dismiss  it with  no  Orders  as to costs.

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. Gitau for the Applicant

Respondent absent

Court clerk         Maina

Hon. F. Terer                       Deputy Chairman      Signed      7. 1.2021