John Odhiambo Ongaro v Salome Grace Orwa & Jephys Auctioneers [2021] KECPT 539 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.69 OF 2019

JOHN  ODHIAMBO  ONGARO.......CLAIMANT

VERSUS

SALOME  GRACE  ORWA....1ST RESPONDENT

JEPHYS  AUCTIONEERS.....2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Applicant  filed  an Application  dated 21. 9.2020 for an injunction  and orders to  settle  a loan by installments  which Application  Notice of Motion  was brought  under  Order 40 Rule  1(a), (b), 2 (1), 4 (1),  Order  51  Rule  3  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules, Section  1 A, 1B and 3A of the  Civil  Procedure  Act cap  21.

The prayers  sought  were:-

1. That this Application  be certified  as urgent  and be heard  ex-parte  in the first  instance  due to the  urgent  nature of the reliefs sought and service of this  Application  be dispensed  with in the first instance.;

2. That pending  the hearing and determination of this suit,  an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining  the Respondents  whether  by  themselves, employees, servants  and/or  agents  or otherwise  assigns and/or  any person  whatsoever acting  on their behalf  and/or  under his  mandate  and/or  instructions  from alienating , advertising  for sale,  offering  for sale,  selling, taking possession of, or otherwise in any manner  whatsoever interfering with any movable  or immovable  properties  attached  and belonging  to the Applicant;

3. That pending  the hearing and determination of this suit,  an order of  injunction  be  and is hereby  issued restraining  the 2nd  Respondents  whether  by  himself, employees, servants  and/or  agents  or otherwise  assigns and/or  any person  whatsoever acting  on their behalf  and/or  under his  mandate  and/or  instructions  from alienating , advertising  for sale,  offering  for sale,  selling, taking possession  of,  or otherwise  in any manner  whatsoever interfering with any movable  or immovable  properties  attached  and belonging  to the Applicant;

4. That  the Applicant  be and is  hereby allowed  to settle  the loan  in installments  that will  be  agreed  between  her and  the 1st Respondent; and

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

2. The Application  is supported  by the Affidavit  of Salome Grace  Orwa dated  21. 9.2020 and filed on  22. 9.2020. The grounds  of the Application  as disclosed  on the face  of the Applications.

3. In  response  to the Application  the Claimant/Respondent  filed  a Replying Affidavit sworn  by  dated  1st December 2020 and  filed on  2. 12. 2020to which  they  opposed the Application  and have  the following:

a. Judgment  Debtor  has defaulted  her loan  the sum  of Kshs.977,969/=

b. Judgment Debtor has no intention to settle indebtedness.

c. No proposal given by Judgment Debtor as to payment.

d. Judgment Debtor firm have no locus as they came on record after judgment.

e. Guarantor has already been deducted the loan  amount  thus  unfair  to him.

Analysis  and  Determination

We have carefully considered the Application, the Affidavits tendered by both parties in support and in rebut of the issues herein.

The issues for determination are:

i. Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for granting interlocutory injunction.

ii. Whether the Applicant should pay the decretal sum in installments.

4. Issue 1:

Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for granting interlocutory injunction.

The  legal  principles  governing  Application  for interlocutory  injunction  the burden  often  lies with  the  Applicant  to prove  that the same  ought  to be granted.

It is also impotent  to  note that  an injunction  is a  discretionary  remedy  and is granted on the  basis  of evidence  and bound  legal  principles.

The principles  for grant  of temporary  injunctions are well set  out  in the celebrated  case of  Giella  -vs-  Cassman Brown  & Company  Limited  [1973] EA 358Supreme Judge  held...

“In an interlocutory injunction  Application, the Applicant  has to satisfy the triple  requirements to:

a. Establish  his case  only at a prima facie level;

b. Demonstrate  irreparable  injury  if a temporary  injunction  is not granted; and

c. Ally any doubts  as to (b) by showing  that the balance  of convenience  is in his favour.”

Further  in the case of  Mrao Limited  - vs- First  American  Bank  of Kenya  &  2 others  [2003] eKLR125

“.......A Prima Facie case is more than an arguable case. It is not sufficient to raise issues.  The evidence must show an infringement of a right and the probability  of  the Applicant’s case  upon trial.  It is a case which  on the material  presented,  to the  court,  a Tribunal  properly  directing  itself  will conclude  that there  exists  a right  which  has apparently been infringed  by the  opposite  party as to call  for an explanation from  the latter......”

5. It is not in dispute that the Applicant took a loan which was guaranteed by the Claimant now Respondent in this Application.

It is  also not  in  dispute  that the Claimant  was forced  to pay  up  the defaulted loan  to  a tune of  Kshs.977,969. 32/= being  a guarantor.

The Applicant’s  contention  is that her  failure  to service  the loan facility  was because  her source  of  income  was cut  short when her  motor vehicle  Matatu Registration  number KBY  182H was towed  by her  financier “Real People” and lost  the same  as it was sold  without  notice  and  no information  given to her.

6. The Applicant  fell  in  arrears  in the year  2018 and  she however  states  she is willing  to enter into  an agreement  with  Claimant/Respondent  on how  to settle  the matter through  installments.

We are inclined  to agree  with the Claimant/Respondent  the Applicant  ought  to have made  payment  or at least  showed  intent of paying  off the loan  facility pending  hearing of the case.  This is paramount  in any given  case.

The Applicant  has failed  in the  1st  case  to  show cause  why she should  be  granted  the  orders  as per  her Application  dated 21. 9.2020.

7. Issue 2:

On whether  she should  pay or  be allowed  to  settle  the loan  in installments  as shall be  agreed  between  her and Claimant  Respondent.

The Applicant has always been in contact with the Claimant/Respondent.

We  believe  she  had opportunities  to negotiate  the same  with  the Claimant/Applicant  as to how  to make payments  to him noting  he had  been forced  to  settle  the decretal  sums by the  lending Sacco.

We do not find the Applicant has come to the Tribunal with clean hands as she so wants us to believe.

8. On the issue  of representation  of the Applicant  by a different  firm of  Advocates  the law is  clear  once a matter  has been  concluded  and judgment  entered.

Order  9 Rule  (9) Civil Procedure  Rule  2010 states:

9 “When there is a change  of advocate, or when   a party  decides  to act  in person  having  previously  engaged  an advocate,  after judgment  has been passed, such  change  or intention  to act  in person  shall not be effected  without  an order  of the court-

a. Upon  an application  with notice  to all  the parties;  or

b. Upon  a consent  filed between  the outgoing  advocate  and the  proposed  incoming  advocate  or party  intending  to act in  person  a the case  may be.”

We  note the  Advocates  S.M Gioche  and Company Advocate are not  properly  on record  and thus  the Application  was a non-starter.

The Applicant’s submissions dated 29. 3.2021 refer to a triable issues coming in after summary judgment.

If  indeed  the Applicant  is being  sincere  and  she ought  to have filed  for a review or setting aside of the judgment  to enable  the Tribunal  determine  the triable  issue they  are alluding  to in their  submissions.

9. In conclusion

The Application dated 21. 9.2020 lacks merits and the same dismissed with costs to the Claimant/Respondent.

RULING 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

Getange  for  Claimant/Respondent: Present

Miss  Njeri Advocate  for Applicant :  Present

Miss Njeri Advocate :  I pray  for 14 days stay of execution

Getange Advocate for Claimant:  There is  judgment  we were  executing.

Order : 7 days  stay of execution  granted.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed   27. 5.2021