Jane Wangui Ndua v Telepost Sacco [2021] KECPT 613 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.385 OF 2020

JANE  WANGUI  NDUA......CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TELEPOST SACCO.......RESPONDENT

RULING

1. An Application  dated 23. 11. 2020 and filed  on  24. 11. 2020 has been  brought  under provisions  of Order 13 Rule  2 of  the Civil  Procedure  Rulesby  the Claimant  seeking  for orders  inter alia:

a.  Judgment on admission be entered in favour of the Claimant/Applicant in the amount of Kshs.163,000/= plus  costs and  interest.

b. Costs of this Application  be awarded  to the Claimant.

The Application is supported   by the ground on the face  of it and affidavit  sworn by  Odhiambo  Geoffrey Genga,Advocate  for  Claimant sworn on  23. 11. 2020.

2. The Respondent has opposed  the Application  by filing  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn by  Samuel Maumbe on  28. 12. 2020.

3. The Tribunal  gave directions  as to the hearing  of  the  present application. The Application  was canvassed  by way  of written  submissions. The claimant filed his  submissions  dated 7. 1.2021 on 12. 2.2021 and the Respondent  filed  theirs  on  8. 3.2021.

4. Claimant’s  Case

The instant application, the Claimant contends  he is entitled  to have a refund  of his shares  having been  a member  of the Respondent – Tele-posta  Sacco Society Limited.

He is  seeking  for  judgment  on admission  to be entered  in his favour  for the audit  of Kshs.163,000/= plus  cost and  interest  as against  the Respondent.

5. Respondent’s  Case

The Respondent  on the other  hand  vide  a Replying Affidavit  sworn  by  one  Samuel Maumbe on  28. 12. 2020.  opposed  the  application  on the grounds  that:

a. The Respondents have not yet refused  to refund  the  deposit  to the Claimant  but  there is a  backlog  of refunds  and  thus payments  are being  done  on the basis  of  first  in first out basis.

b. They  are currently  making  payments  for  the 2017 claims. They are overwhelmed  by the  withdrawals.

6.  Issues  for determination

This issues for determination in the Application dated 23. 11. 2019 are:-

a. Whether  Replying  Affidavit  should be  admitted

b. Whether the Claimant has established a proper basis  for the grant  of the orders  sought.

c. Who should meet costs of the Application?

7. Issue  II-  Whether  the Claimant  has established a  proper basis  for the grant  of the Orders sought

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make orders regarding judgment  especially  on admission  by the  Respondent. Order  13 Rule  2  Civil Procedure Rule, 2010, under which  the  Claimant  sought  entry  of judgment  on admission  provides:

“ any party  may at any  stage  of  a suit  where admission  of facts  has been made,  either  on the pleadings  or otherwise, apply to the court  for such judgment  or order  as upon  such admissions  he may  be entitled  to,  without  waiting  for the determination  of any other  question  between  the  parties; and the court  may upon  such application  make such  order,  or give such  judgment, as  the court may   think just.”

8. In Cassman – vs-  Sachania (1982) KLR 191 the court held:

“ granting  judgment  on admission  of facts  is a discretionary  power which  must be exercised  sparingly  in only  plain cases  where the admission  is clear and  unequivocal.. Judgment on admission  cannot be  granted  where points  of law  have been  raised and where one  has  to resort  to interpretation  of documents  to  reach a decision.”

9. The Claimant  relied  on  paragraph  2 of the Respondents  Statement  of Defence which reads:

“ The Respondent  avers  that the Claimant’s deposits  are Kshs.163,000/= exclusive  of share capital”

10. Issue I: Whether  Replying  Affidavit  should be  admitted

The claimant’s  submissions  dated 23rd November  2020, further  seek to  have  the application  be deemed  unopposed  as the Replying Affidavit  filed  by the Respondent dated  28. 12. 2020 was not  commissioned.

The  power to strike  out pleadings  due to  infraction  of the rules  of procedure  in discretionary. Any  adjudicator  has to consider  all the circumstances  of the case.  It is our view  not taking  the Replying  affidavit  into consideration  is tantamount  to sacrificing  justice upon the Respondent. The  Tribunal  is not a court of technicalities  and thus  will  not allow the  view  point as  taken by  the Claimant.

It shall  be  counter  to the provisions  of Article  159 (2) (d) of the constitution  of Kenya which provides  that justice shall be  done  without  due regard  to technicalities.

11. Issue III:  Who should  meet the costs of the Application?

Each  party to  bear  tis own  costs of the  application

12. Conclusion

judgment is hereby be entered  on admission  for Kshs.163,000/=  in favour  of the Claimant  aginst the  Respondent plus costs  and interest at  Tribunal rates.

Application  dated 23. 11. 2020 is allowed  as prayed .

JUDGMENT 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

Genga  Advocate  for Claimant: Present

Maumbe  on behalf of Respondent:  Present

Mention  on 27. 7.2021  for directions.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      27. 5.2021