John Muhoro Njore v Nanasi Housing Co-operative Society Limited, Margaret Wairimu Mbirua & Judy Mwihaki Kinyua [2020] KECPT 78 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 369 OF 2010

JOHN MUHORO NJORE ...............................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

NANASI  HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY   LIMITED...........................1ST RESPONDENT

MARGARET WAIRIMU  MBIRUA.................................2ND RESPONDENT

JUDY  MWIHAKI KINYUA...............................................3RD RESPONDENT

RULING

What is  before  us for consideration  and determination  are two  Applications; one by   the  3rd  Respondent dated  8. 3.2019 and the other  by the  1st  and 2nd  Respondents dated  13th  November  2018.

Vide  the directions  issued  by the Tribunal  on 29. 7.2019, the two  Applications  will be  determined  together. We will  begin  with the1st  and  2nd Respondent’s  Application  dated  13. 11. 2018.

1st  and  2nd Respondent’s  Application  dated  13. 11. 2018.

This Application  seeks  for orders,  inter alia, that  there be  a stay  of execution  of the Judgment entered  on  10. 8.2018, decree  therefrom  and all  consequential  Orders  pending  the hearing  and  determination of the Application  for  leave  to Appeal  out of  time  dated  9. 10. 18.

The Application is based  on  the  grounds  on its  face and  the  Supporting Affidavit of the 1st Respondent’s  Chairman,  Simon  Mbirua Karangu on even  date  13. 11. 2018.

It is  the  1st  and  2nd Respondent’s case  that  they have  filed  an Application for leave  to Appeal  out  of time against  the Judgment  delivered  on 9. 10. 2018. That  before  the said  Application  can be heard  and determined,  there is  need  for  an  order  of stay  of execution  of the said  Judgment  to be granted. That if stay  is not granted,  the said  Application  will be rendered  nugatory. That  the subject  matter is  land  and that  they will suffer  irreparably  as the  2nd  Defendant’s name  will  be  cancelled  from  the land Registrar of the parcel  of land  at  Thika.

The Claimant  has opposed  the Application  by filing  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by  himself  on  22. 1.2019, vide  this response,  the claimant opposes  the Application  based  on the following  grounds;

a. That the same  has been  brought  after  a long  an –unexplained  delay  of  five  (5)months;

b. That  the Application  does  not  satisfy the conditions  set out  in order  22 Rule 22 and  order  42  Rule  of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules;

c. That  the Applicant  has not  offered  any security  or  bond  as a  condition  for  the  orders  sought;

d. That  no Appeal  has  been   filed yet; and

e. That  the 1st  and  2nd  Respondent will  not  suffer  any prejudice  or  harm  if  the orders  are executed.

Written  submissions

1st  and  2nd  Respondent’s written submissions

Vide  their  written  submissions  filed  on 30. 8.2019, the  1st and  2nd  Respondents  have  reiterated  their  averments  above  and further  state  as follows;

a.     That  the Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to grant  the orders  sought  in terms  of  order  42  Rule  6 (2) of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules;

b. That they  will  suffer  substantial loss  if the  decree  is  executed  as the  suit  land will  be  registered  in the name  of the  Claimant;

c. That cancellation of  the  title  will  occasion substantial  loss  to  the  3rd  Respondents;

d. That  the Application  has been  filed  without undue  delay. That  the application  is dated  13. 11. 2018;

e. That the  delay  to file  an Appeal  in  the High Court  was occasioned  by  the  Tribunal  with  regard  to issuance  of certified  copies  of the judgment  and proceedings; and

f.   That the claimant will not  suffer  any  prejudice if  the stay  is granted.

Claimant’s Submissions

The Claimant,  vide  his  submissions  filed  on  1/10/2019,  reiterated  his averments above.  Further, he  contends  that the Instant  Application  is just  a ploy  by the  1st  and  2nd  Respondents  to deny  him the  fruits  of his judgment.

Issues  for determination

The  1st  and 2nd  Respondent’s Application  dated  13. 11. 2018 has raised  the following  issues for determination:

a. Whether  the  1st and  2nd Respondents  have laid  a proper  basis  to warrant  an order  of stay  of execution of  the  Judgment  delivered  on  10. 8.2018;and

b. Who should  bear  the cost  of the ApplicationStay of  execution of Judgment

The legal  basis   for grant of  stay pending  Appeal  is  Order  42  Rule  6 of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules.

The  Rule  provides thus;

“No order  of stay  of execution  shall be  made under  sub Rule  (1) unless  (a)  the  court is satisfied  that substantial  loss  may result  to the applicant  unless  the order is  made  and that  the Application  has been  made without  unreasonable  delay.”

The above  principles  were restayed  by  the court  in the case  of Chris  Munga  N. Bichage  Vs  Richard  Nyagaka  Tongi  &  2  Others  as  follows;

“.........the law  as regards  application  for stay  of  execution,  stay of  proceedings  or injunction  is now  well settled. The Applicant  who would  succeed  upon such  Application  must persuade  the court  on two limbs, which  are first,  that his Appeal  or  intended  Appeal  is  arguable,  that  is to say, it  is not frivolous;  secondary, that,  if the Application  is not granted,  the success of  the Appeal,  were  it  to succeed, would  be rendered  nugatory. These  two  limbs  must both  be demonstrated  and  it would  not be  enough  that  only  one is demonstrated. ....”

In the case  of  M/S Porteitz Maternity Vs  James  Karangu Kabia  Civil Appeal  No.  63/1997, the  court  held thus;

“the right of Appeal  must be  balanced  against  an equally weighty  right,  that  for   the plaintiff  to enjoy  the fruits  of the judgment  delivered  in his favour.  There must  be a  just cause  for depriving  the  plaintiff  of that right......”

From  the wording  of order  42 Rule  6 (2)  and the principles,  laid down  in  the above  cases,  it is  apparent  that for  an Application  for stay  of  execution  of Decree  or  Judgment  to succeed,  the  applicant  must  demonstrate  the following;

a. That  substantial loss  may result  if  stay  is not granted; and

b. That the  Application  must be   brought  without  unreasonable  delay.

Loss

We have considered the submissions of the 1st and 2nd   Respondents  in this regard. They contend  that  a decision  to cancel  title  to property  L.R.14/597 to the  3rd  Respondent  has been  made and  that  it has expressed  desire  to challenge  it by  filling  an Application  for  leave to  file an Appeal  out  of time  at the  Kiambu  Law Courts.

On the other  hand,  the Claimant  contend  that the  Respondents  will not suffer  any prejudice if  the judgment  is executed.

The issue  in dispute  in the  matter  revolve around  ownership of  land. The Claimant sued  the  1st and  2nd Respondents  for unlawfully  conferring  title  for  the said land to  the  3rd  Respondent.  The Claimant succeeded  in his case but  the 1st and  2nd  Respondents  have  opted  to  Appeal. However,  a substantive  Appeal  has not  been  filed  and   the 1st  and  2nd  Respondents want an order of stay  to be granted.

From  our appreciation  of the facts  on record, the kind  of  prejudice  the  1st and 2nd Respondents will suffer is that of cancellation  of  the title  to the said property. In   our view,  if the Appeal  were to be  filed  and  eventually  succeed, there  is no doubt  the  1st and  2nd Respondents  will suffer  irreparable  loss.

The Claimant  has accused  the  1st and 2nd Respondents  of filing  the Application  late in  the day. That  it took  them  5 months to do so. On  the other hand, the  1st and  2nd  Respondents  contend  that it has  filed  the Application without  unreasonable  delay.  That  upon  delivery of  judgment  in the matter  on  10. 8.2018,  it applied  to be  supplied  with certified  copy  of  proceedings  vide the  letter dated 11. 8.2018. That  subsequently,  the said  proceedings  were supplied  on 11. 10. 20. That by this time, their  time  limited  for lodging  an appeal  in the High Court had lapsed. That  they  then had  to file  an Application  for  leave  to Appeal  out of  time.  That they  did so  on  8. 11. 2018.

We have considered  the material  placed before  us as  regards  the time taken  from  delivery  of Judgment  on  10. 8.2018 to securing  of typed proceeding on 1. 10. 19 and eventual  filing  of an Application   for leave  to  Appeal  on  8. 11. 2018. We are  satisfied  that  the 1st  and 2nd respondents  are not  to  entirely  blame  for delay  in filing  the Appeal  as  the proceedings were supplied  after  the  time  for closing  so had expired.

The question  relevant  to  these  proceedings  regards  the time  the  1st and  2nd  Respondents  took  to  file  the Instant  Application after  receiving  the typed  copy  of  the judgment  and proceedings. It is  apparent  that  the proceedings  were supplied  on  1. 10. 2018 and  the instant  application  was filed  on 13. 11. 2018. This is  a period  of 1 month  13 days.  Can it be said  that this period  is too long  to  found  the  Instant  Application? Our answer  is in the negative. We  find that  the  1st an d 2nd Respondent  have  brought  the instant  Application  without unreasonable  delay

The  3rd  Respondent’s  Application  dated 8. 3.2019.

This Application  seeks for  the following  orders:

1.  That  this application  be certified  urgent  and be heard ex-parte in the first instance.

2.  That his Honourable  Court be pleased  to grant  stay of execution  of the judgment  entered  on  10. 8.2018,  decree and/or consequential  orders  and/or  stay  of further  proceedings  in this suit pending  the interparties  hearing  and  determination  of this application;

3.  That  this Honorable  Court be pleased  to set aside  default  judgment  and all consequential  orders  entered  against the  3rd Respondent  in this suit;

4.  That this Honorable  Court be pleased to grant  leave to the  3rd  Respondent/Applicant  to defend  this suit out  of time as per  annexed  draft  defence  and the same  be deemed  duly  filed  and served  upon  payment  of the requisite  fee thereof; and

5.  That costs  of this application  be provided  for.

It is  supported  by the grounds  on its  face  and the Supporting  Affidavit  of the  3rd  Respondent  sworn  on  8. 3.2019.

The gist  of the  said Application  is that she was  not served  with  the statement  of  re-amended claim  and summons to enter  Appearance. That  the orders  subsequently  made by  the court  are adverse  to her.

The Claimant  has opposed  the Application  by  filing  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by himself  on  20. 5.2019. Vide  the said  response,  the Claimant  content  that the  3rd  Respondent  was duly  served  with summons  to enter  appearance  vide  substituted  service,  that is,  Daily Nation   issue No.  4/4/2014  but failed  to enter  appearance  and/or  file  defence.

That  the Application  is an abuse  of the court  process  as  it has been  filed  7 months  after  delivery  of  judgment.

That before service of summons through newspaper, advertisement, the claimant  filed  an Application  to do so. That  the only  recourse  left  for the  3rd  Respondent is  to seek  recourse  from  the  1st and  2nd Respondents.

This Tribunal  has jurisdiction   to set  aside  a default  judgment  by  dint of Order  10 Rule  11  of the Civil Procedure Rules which  provides  that;

“where  judgment  has been entered under  this  order,  the court  may set  aside  or vary  suit judgment  and  any consequential  decree  or  order upon  such  terms  as are just”

It  thus follow that the Tribunal   exercises  its jurisdiction  above  so as to  do justice  to the parties. This  position  was  restated  by the court  in the case ofPatel  vs  East Africa Cargo  Services  Ltd (1974) E.A  75in the  following terms.

“ The main  concern  of the court is to do justice  to the parties  and the court  will  not  impose  conditions  on itself  to  fetter  the  wide discretion given  to  it by the  Rules”.

The court  in the case  of  James  Kanyitta  Nderitu  & Another  Vs  Marios  Philotas  Ghikas  &  Another[2016] eKLR set  out  the conditions that must  be  fulfilled  before  default  judgment  can be set aside. They  include.

a. The reason  for failure  to file  a Memorandum  of Appearance ,  or defence;

b. The length  of time that  has elapsed  since  the  default  judgment  was entered;

c. Whether  the intended  defence  raises  triable  issues;

d. The respective  prejudice  each party  is likely  to suffer; and

e. Whether,  in the whole,  it is in the interest  of justice to set aside  the default  judgment....

We consider  the above  principle, individual as  follows;

Reason  for  failure  to  enter appearance  or file  a defence.

It is the 3rd Respondent’s case that she was not served with summons  to enter  appearance.

We disagree with her and find that she was duly served with summons  to enter appearance.  When  it was not  possible  to serve  her personally,  the claimant  filed  an Application  for leave  to serve  her by way  of Newspaper  Advertisement.  The  same was  granted  and was thus   served  vide  Daily  Nation  issue of  4. 4.2014.

Length  of time

The instant  Application  was filed on  26. 4.2019 while  the Judgment  in the matter  was delivered  on  10. 8.2018. This is a period of approximately 8 months since the said judgment was delivered. The  3rd  Respondent  has not  given  any explanation  as to why  she took  such  a  long period  of time  to file  he said  Application.  In light  of  this, we therefore  find that  the  delay  in filing  the Application  was inordinate.

Defence  raising  triable  issues

We have  perused  the  draft  defence  attached  to the  application. We note  that the issues  raised  therein are similar  to those  raised  by  the 1st  and 2nd Respondent  in their  statement  of defence dated 7. 3.2011 and  amended  on  4. 4.12  and  also during  their evidence at the time  the suit was  heard.  In the circumstances,  we find that  the said  draft  defence  does  not  raise  triable  issues and more  so that  the  Tribunal  has  delivered  judgment  on the matter.

Prejudice

The 3rd  Respondent  contend  that she will  suffer prejudice  if the Application  is not granted. In lieu of our findings  above,  we find that  she has not demonstrated  any prejudice  she will suffer.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  find merit  in  the 1st and  2nd   Respondent’s  application   dated  13. 11. 2018 and  allow it  on terms  that we grant  stay of  execution  of judgment  dated 10. 8.2018 together  with  its consequential  orders  and/or  Decrees until  the hearing  and determination  of the application  filed  in Kiambu  High Court  being MISC. APPL. NO. 218/2018. Each party  to bear  own  costs  of  the  application .

Consequently,  the 3rd  Respondent’s Application  dated  8. 3.2019 is hereby  dismissed with  no orders  as to  cost.

Read and delivered in an open court this 26th  day of February2020

In the presence of ;-

Claimant                     :         No appearance

Respondent                 :         No appearance

3rd  Respondent/Applicant           : Gacheru  Advocate Present

Court Assistant            :         Charles Maina

Hon. B. Kimemia         -        Chairman           Signed

Hon. F. Terer                 -        Deputy Chairman      Signed

P. Swanya                     -        MemberSigned