Jevons Simiyu Mukhongo v Harambee Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 503 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.226 OF 2020

JEVONS  SIMIYU  MUKHONGO.........................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

HARAMBEE  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED................................RESPONDENT

RULING

This  is our Ruling  on the Claimant’s  Application  dated 29. 7.2020. Vide  the instant Application,  the Claimant  has moved the Tribunal  seeking  for Orders  inter alia:

1.  That this  Application  be  certified  urgent  and service  hereof be dispensed  with in the first  instance;

2. That pending  the hearing and  determination  of this dispute,  this Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to issue a temporary  injunction  directing  the Respondent  to withdraw and retract  its letter  to the Claimant’s/Applicant  employer  advising  that a by-election  be conducted  for  electing  a new delegate  while the Claimant/Applicant  was and still is a duly elected Delegate;

3.  That  pending  the hearing and  determination  of this dispute,  this Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to issue  an Order  directing  the Respondent  to reinstate  the Claimant/Applicant  as a delegate;

4.  That the Honourable  Tribunal  be to issue  any other or further  Order in the interest  of justice; and

5. That the costs of this Application  be  provided for.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face the following  Affidavits:

a. Supporting  Affidavit  sworn by  the Claimant on 29. 7.2020; and

b. Further  Affidavit   sworn by  Claimant  on 3. 9.2020.

The Respondent  has  opposed  the Application by filing a Replying  Affidavit  sworn by Rosemary  Ooko,   the  Respondent’s  Delegates Relations  Officer on  21. 8.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  24. 8.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant filed  his written submissions  on  9. 4.2020 while  the Respondent did so on   8. 10. 2020.

Claimant’s  Contention

It is  the Claimant’s contention  that the Respondent  suspended  him  for allegedly  spreading  falsehood  and malicious  allegations  against members  of  the Board  of Directors; that on 16. 4.2019, he presented  his defence  totally  denying  the allegations leveled  against him.  That subsequently  he was invited  to a hearing  of his  case on  8. 5.2019. That after  the said  hearing, the Respondent  did not furnish  him with  its verdict. That whilst  the matter remained  unresolved,  the Respondent  wrote to his  employer, the Kenya Defence Forces, Nanyuki Airbase, advising  that a by-election  be  conducted  for the  election  of a new delegate yet he was still a delegate.

That  the actions  of the Respondent  amounted  to breach  of  its  by-laws.

Respondent’s case

Vide  the Replying  Affidavit  sworn by  Rosemary Ooko on  21. 8.2020, the  Respondent  has opposed  the Application  on grounds  that the  Claimant  was suspended  from being  one  of its delegates with  effect  from  9. 4.2019 for  circulating  an alleged  report from  the Sacco Regulatory Authority (SASRA)via his whatsapp No.  0728303069.  That  he also circulated  hard copies  of the said  document to other  delegates  and members of the society. That the Claimant  did not  have  authority to share the said  document. That  the Claimant’s  actions  contravened  clause  39-8. 1of the Respondent’s  by –laws.

That it was  therefore  within the  Respondent’s  right  to suspect  the  Claimant.

That  Upon being  suspended  the Claimant  was  invited  to  appear  before the Respondent’s  Administrative  Inquiry Committee on 8. 5.2019. That  he indeed  appeared and  made an oral  and written  defence.

That whilst  the Administrative inquiry  committee was considering  the Claimant’s  Defence and before it communicated  its  decision to the Claimant, the terms  of the  various  delegates, including  the Claimant came to us  and  the Respondent’s Branch  elections  were held  between  16thand18th  January, 2020.

That  by dint of  clause  39. 7 of the  Respondent’s by-laws, there were  certain  qualifications  each candidate was supposed  to  meet before being eligible  to contest  in the said elections.

That the Claimant  was not eligible  to contest  in the said elections because  he had defaulted  in repaying  his loan  during the election period. That  the said  loan was  attached  to his  guarantors.

That  is on the basis of the  foregoing that the Respondent  authorized  the Claimant’s  employer to conduct  elections.

That  it is thus  not true that  the Claimant  is still  a  delegate  for the following reasons:

(i)   As per  clause 39. 6.(IV), of the  Respondent’s  by-laws, a delegates term  is for a period  of three  (3) years  and therefore by the  time  the  Respondent’s  circular of 31. 12. 2019,  was issued,  the Claimant’s  term  as a delegate  had expired;

(ii)   That as pointed  out  in the letter  closed 5. 6.2020,  the Claimant  was not eligible  to  contest  as a delegate  in the 2020 Branch  elections since  he had defaulted in repayment of his  loan.

Claimant’s  further Affidavit  sworn  on  3. 9.2020.

Vide  this Affidavit, the Claimant  has rebutted  the averments  made in the Replying  Affidavit sworn on  21. 8.2020 as follows:

That  he has never  circulated  the said SASRA report  via his whatsapp Cell phone NO. [….] or physically  as alleged.

That clauses  39. 9 and 39. 10 of the Respondent’s  by-laws  envisage an expeditious  disciplinary  process and  that failure  of the Respondent’s  board  to determine  his matter for a period of one (1)  year  five(5) months amounts  to violation  of the provisions  of the fair administrative  Act  and Article  47 and 50  of the Constitution.

That  as regards to the defaulted  loan,  the Claimant  accuses the Respondent  for engaging  in serious  financial  malpractices  and corruption  by advancing  free money disguised  as  “salary advance loans” to  delegates  against  its  policies  and  regulations  with  the sole aim of  buying   their silence  and creating  alliancesused when the  scheme  flops, the  Respondent  invokes  the illegally advanced  monies  as  a basis  of getting rid  of a  delegate from office.

That  it is no wonder  that the  alleged  loan was  advanced  to him on  27. 2.2019 and since  then,  the Respondent  had never  demanded  for repayment  and  has never  recovered  any part  of it from his salary  and that  the loan statement  dated 18. 8.2020 is a forgery.

Issues  for determination

The Claimant’s  Application  dated  29. 7.2020 has presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Claimant  has established  a proper  basis  to warrant  issuance  of  an order directing  the Respondent  to withdraw or retract  its letter advising  his employer  to conduct  a by-election  to elect  a new delegate;

b. Whether  an Order  should issue  compelling  the Respondent  to reinstate  the Claimant  as a delegate; and

c. Who should  meet the  costs of   the Application?

Mandatory  injunction

The order  sought  by the Claimant  in prayer  (3) of the Application  is mandatory  in nature.  He wants  the Respondent  to be compelled  to retract, withdraw or rescind a letter  it issued to  his employer advising  it to  conduct  a by-election to elect  a new delegate. This being  the  case,  what parameters  should  we  consider  before allowing  or rejecting such  an Application? We found  the answer in the decision  of  the court in the case of  Kenya  Breweries  Limited & Another – vs-  Washington  Okeyo[2002]eKLRin the  pertinent  part,  the court held thus:

“ The test  whether  to grant  a mandatory  injunction  or not  in  correcting  stayed  in  Vol. 24, Halbury- Laws  of England, 4th Edition page  948 which reads;

“ A mandatory  injunction  can be granted  at an interlocutory  Application  as well  as at the hearing,  but in the absence  of  special  circumstances  it will not  normally  be granted.”

The court  in the case of  Locabail International  Finance  Limited  - vs-  Agroexport & others [1986] ALL E.R 901-  gave clarity  to the  rendition above  as follows:

“ A mandatory injunction  ought  not to be   granted  on an interlocutory  Application  in the absence  of  special  circumstances,  and then  only in clear case,  either  where  the court thought  the matter ought  to be  decided  at once or where the  injunction  was directed  at a simple  and summary  act which could be  easily  remedied  or where the  defendant  had attempted  to steal  a match  from the plaintiff. Moreover,  before granting  a mandatory  injunction,  the court had  to feel a higher  degree of  assurance  that at the trial,  it would appear that the injunction  had rightly  been  granted, that  being a different  and  a higher  standard  then was  required  for a prohibitory  injunction.”

It follows  therefore that for a mandatory  injunction  to be granted,  the following  conditions  must obtain:

a. Existence  of special  circumstances

b. The  case must  be clear

With  these  principles  in the fore,  the question  that begs  is whether  the Claimant has presented  special  circumstances  to warrant  the grant  of an Order compelling  the Respondent  to withdraw and retract  its letter  to the Claimant’s  employer  advising  it to conduct  a by- election  to elect  a new delegate   whilst  he was still  the duly  elected  delegate.

It is  the Claimant’s  case  that whilst  he  was still  the Respondent’s  delegate, the Respondent called for a by-election vide its letter  dated 23. 6.2019. That this  action  amounted  to breach  of  its by-laws.

In a rejoinder,  the Respondent  avers  that the Claimant’s  terms as a delegate  had come to  an end  and  that fresh  elections  were scheduled  for  16-18th  January, 2020.

We pause  here  and ask  the question  whether indeed  the Claimant’s  term  had come  to an end.

We have  perused the Claimant’s  further  Affidavit sworn on  3. 9.2020. At  paragraphs 6 and 7  thereof  we note that  the Claimant  has not denied  if it is true  that his term had ended as a delegate  and that fresh election,  were underway. By failing  to  do so,  we are left  to belief  that indeed  his term  had ended  and that the Respondent  was  within  its right  to call for  fresh  elections.  The contention  therefore that a by-elections  was called  for while  he was  still a delegate  does not stand.

With this  finding  alone,  we do not  find any  basis in prayer  2 of  the Application. Simply  put,  we find that  the Claimant  has not established  existence  of special  circumstances  to warrant an Order  compelling  the Respondent  to withdraw and retract  its letter  to the Claimant’s employer sanctioning  the conduct  of  fresh  elections.

Reinstatement

At paragraph  10  of his  supporting  Affidavit, the Claimant  contend  that:

“ despite  a demand  Notice  and intention the  commence  legal  proceedings, the Respondent  has  refused  and/or  neglected  to reinstate  me as  a delegate  and withdraw and retract  its letter  to my employer.”

The basis  upon which  the Claimant  is asking  for reinstatement  is the pendency  of his  disciplinary  proceedings. However,  and as it  were, the  Claimant’s term  came to an end  and nothing  has been  led to  show that he applied  to be re-elected as a delegate. This  being  the case,  we find  that  we do not  have enough  material with  which  to make  an order  for reinstatement.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing,  is that we do  not find merit  in the Claimant’s  Application  dated 29. 7.2020and hereby  dismiss  it with costs  in the cause.

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

Mr. Were holding brief  for Mr. Brian  Khaemba  for the Claimant

Miss  Rosemary  Sossion holding brief for  Miss Kavagi  for Respondent

Court clerk- Maina

Hon. F. Terer                          Deputy Chairman      Signed      7. 1.2021.