Johnson Waweru Kariungi & 15 others v Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Kibirigwi Farmers Co-operative Society Limited [2021] KECPT 556 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

MISC. APPL. TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.5 OF 2013

JOHNSON WAWERU  KARIUNGI &  15  OTHERS....................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

REGISTRAR  OF CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETIES............1ST  RESPONDENT

KIBIRIGWI FARMERS  CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY  LIMITED.............................................................2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

What is  before  us  for  consideration  and determination  is the  2nd  Respondent’s Application  dated 16. 4.2018. It seeks  for Orders  inter alia:

a. That  this Appeal  was initiated  in 2002 and given  the current  number in the year  2013;

b. That the Appellants have failed,  refused and/or  neglected  to fix  this Appeal  for hearing and/or  take any other  step  to progress  the matter;

c. That the Appeal  was last in court on 22nd  August  2014 when the Appellants  were granted  21 days to file and serve  their record  of Appeal. Since  then no action  has been  taken by the Appellants;

d. That  to file  an Appeal  and fail to  prosecute  it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and thus this appeal is liable for striking  out for want of  prosecution  under  the inherent  jurisdiction  of this  court; and

e. That  it is  only fair  and just for the appeal  be dismissed  with costs.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn  by C.K. Kiplagat  on  10. 4.2018. The Respondent  has opposed  the Application  vide the Replying  Affidavit sworn by  Paul  Wachiuri  Muhoro on   3. 9.2018.

Vide  the directions given on  10. 9.2020, the Application  was canvassed  by way  of written  submissions.  The 2nd Respondent filed  its submissions  on 5. 11. 2020. Despite  service  of the said directions, the  Appellants have not field their submissions.

2nd Respondent’s Contention

It is  the  2nd  Respondent’s Contention  that  since  the Appeal was filed in the year,  2002,  the Appellants have never taken  any step  to prosecute  it. That the matter  was last  in court on  22. 8.2014 when the  Appellants  were granted  leave of  21 days  to file and serve  their record  of Appeal.

Appellant’s Case

Vide  the Replying  Affidavit of Paul Wachiuri Muhoro sworn  on 31. 9.2018,  the Appellants  confirmed that  they indeed  initiated  the Appeal in the year, 2002. That  they subsequently sought  leave to amend  it in  the year  2014.  That some  of the Appellants are  deceased  and that some of the beneficiaries  of their estates are pursuing  succession. That  the process  of succession  is proving to  be  tedious  as getting hold  of the personal  representatives of some  of  the said  Appellants are proving  to be tedious.

Issues  for determination

The  2nd  Respondent’s Application  dated 16. 4.2018 has presented  the following  issues for determination:

a. Whether  the instant Appeal  should  be dismissed  for want of  prosecution;

b. Who  should meet  the costs  of this Application?

Dismissal  for want  of  prosecution

Order  17 Rule  2 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules provides  for a framework  for dismissal  of  a suit  for want of prosecution. The  court  in the case of  George  Gatere Kibata – vs-  George  Karia Mwaura &  Another [2017] eKLRgave  the  factors  to be taken  into account  before  dismissing  a suit  for  want of  prosecution  in the following  terms:

“.....There  are three  key questions  to  be answered ...... The  first  one is  whether  the Applicant  has satisfied  the statutory  threshold  set out under  Order  17 Rule  2 of  the Civil Procedure  Rules. The second question  is whether  there has  been  inordinate  and inexcusable  delay  on the part of the  Plaintiff. The third question  is whether  it would  cause grave  injustice  to the Defendants if this  case  were to  be allowed  to proceed  to trial notwithstanding any  preceding delay  on the part of  the plaintiff...”

Order  17 Rule  2 provides  thus:

“ 2 (1) In any  suit in which  no Application  has been made or step taken by either  party for one year,  the court may  give Notice  in writing  to the parties  to show cause  why  the suit  should not be dismissed, and  if  cause  is not shown  to its satisfaction, may dismiss  the suit. “

The court  in the case of  Mwangi S. Kimenyi – vs-  AG Misc. Appl. NO. 720/2009, further  gave clarity to the foregoing  principles   in the following  terms:

“ 1. When the  delay  is prolonged  and  inexcusable,  such that it would  cause grave injustice  to the one side  or the other  or to both,  the court may  in its  discretion dismiss  the action  straight away.

2. Invariably, what should  matter  to  the court is to  serve substantive  justice through judicious exercise  of discretion which is to be guided  by the following  issues: 1. Whether  the  delay has  been intentional and contumelious;  2.  Whether  the delay  or the conduct  of the Plaintiff amounts  to an abuse  of the court;  3. Whether  the delay  is inexcusable and inordinate; 4. Whether  the delay  is one  that gives  rise to  a substantial  risk  to fair trial  in that it  is  not possible  to have a fair  trial  of issues an action  or causes  or likely to cause  serious  prejudice  to the Defendant; and 5. What  prejudice  will  the dismissal  cause to  the  Plaintiff.

By this  fast,  the court  as is not assisting  the indolent, but rather,  it is serving  the interests  of justice, substantive  justice  on behalf  of  the parties..”

We summarize  the foregoing  principles  as follows:

a. That firstly,  a party seeking  dismissal of a suit  for want of  prosecution  must satisfy  the legal requirement of the one year  threshold set out in Order  17 Rule  2;

b. That once  the legal  requirement is satisfied, the party must demonstrate  that there has  been inordinate  and inexcusable  delay in prosecuting  the matter;

c. Thirdly,  the party  must demonstrate  that he will  be greatly  prejudiced  if by the delay  if the suit were  to be  allowed to proceed  to trial.

d. Finally, the party  must demonstrate  that owing  to the delay, a fair  trial cannot  be achieved.

Coming  to the circumstances of this case,  the question that were  pause is whether  the instant  Application has met  the  foregoing  principles. We consider  the said  principles  individually as follows:

One year  legal  threshold

We  are satisfied  that the instant  Application  meets  the one-year  legal threshold  set out in Order  17  Rule 2  of the Civil Procedure  Rules. The matte was last  in court on 22. 8.2014, which  the instant Application  was originated  on 11. 4.2018. This is  a period  of approximately  three years  7 months.

Inordinate  delay

We look  at this  principle  in the context  of the age  of the claim  and the legal  principle set out in  Order 17  Rule 2 above. As regard  the age of the  matter, it is not  in  dispute  that this  Appeal  is over  20  years old.  It was filed  in the year  2002. Secondly, the Appellants  have never shown  interest  to prosecute  the Appeal  since  22. 8.2014 when the Claimant  were granted  leave of  21 days  to amend the same. We are  thus  convinced  that there  has been  inordinate  delay  to prosecute  the Appeal.

Whether  the Respondent  will be  prejudiced  if we allow the Appeal to proceed to trial

It’s our finding  that the  continued  pendency  of the Appeal will cause  a lot of prejudice  of the  Respondent’s  especially  the 2nd  Respondent. The  2nd Respondent  continues  to incur  costs on a matter  which the owners  are not  keen to move it forward.

Fair  trial

It’s our  finding  that  because  of the delay  to prosecute  the Appeal, fair trial  cannot be achieved. This  has been  compounded  by the contentions of the  Appellants that it  is  not known  when they will  put their  house in  Order  in  terms  of substitution  of deceased Claimants. The  deponent  of  the Replying  Affidavit  has admitted  that  it has proved  futile  to  locate  the personal  representatives of deceased Claimants.

Conclusion

When  all is said  and done, we  find that the  2nd  Respondent’s Application dated  16. 4.2018 has merit  and allow it  on terms  that the Appeal herein   is hereby  struck  out with costs to the  2nd  Respondent. Orders  accordingly.

Ruling  signed,  dated and  delivered virtually  this  28th  day of January, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                 Chairperson                Signed      28. 1.2021

Mr. B.Akusala                      Member                       Signed      28. 1.2021

Mr. R. Mwambura                Member                       Signed      28. 1.2021

No  appearance for both parties.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      28. 1.2021