Joseph Mwangi Maina v Barichu Farmers Co-operative Society Limited [2021] KECPT 583 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.260 OF 2020

JOSEPH  MWANGI  MAINA........................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

BARICHU FARMERS  CO-OPERATIVESOCIETY  LIMITED....... RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 20. 8.2020,  the Claimant has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

a. That  the Application  be certified  as urgent,  be heard  ex-parte  in the first  instance and  service  be dispensed  with in  the  first instance;

b. That  pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application,  this Honourable  Tribunal be  pleased  to order  the Respondent  either by  itself,  its servants,  agents  or howsoever to unconditionally reinstate  the Claimant/applicant  to the Respondent’s  Management Committee forthwith;

c. That  pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit,  this Honourable  Tribunal be  pleased  to order  the Respondent  either by  itself,  its servants,  agents  or howsoever to unconditionally reinstate  the Claimant/applicant  to the Respondent’s  Management Committee forthwith;

d. That  pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application,  this Honourable  Tribunal be  pleased  to issue orders restraining   the Respondent  either by  itself,  its servants,  agents  or howsoever from  suspending,  harassing,  intimidating  or  in any  other manner  whatsoever interfering  with the Claimant/applicant’s position  and membership in the Respondent;

e. That  pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit,  this Honourable  Tribunal be  pleased  to issue orders restraining   the Respondent  either by  itself,  its servants,  agents  or howsoever from  suspending,  harassing,  intimidating  or  in any  other manner  whatsoever interfering  with the Claimant/applicant’s position  and membership in the Respondent;  and

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

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Supporting Affidavit  sworn by  Claimant on  20. 8.2020, and the supplementary Affidavit  sworn  by the Claimant  on  18. 11. 2020.

The Respondent  has  opposed  the Application by filing the  following  Affidavits:

a. Replying  Affidavit  sworn James  Giting’a  Gathiru on 21. 9.2020; and

b. Further  affidavit  sworn by the  said James Giting’a  Gathiru  on 22. 12. 2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  14. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant filed  his written submissions  on  4. 11. 2020 while  the Respondent did so on  11. 11. 2020.

Claimant’s  Contention

Vide  the instant  Application,  the Claimant  wants  to be reinstated  as a member  of the Respondent’s  management  committee  on grounds  that  the Respondent  illegally  suspended  him as such. That  his suspension  was triggered  by a letter  he wrote  to the  Respondent’s  Management  Committee  on  17. 2.2020. That Vide  the said  letter,  he complained  about  the conduct  of the  Management  Committee.

That on  15. 7.2020,  he was  ordered  out of the Board  meeting  by  the chairman  of the Respondent’s  Management  committee  on the guise  that the committee  wanted  to discuss  his conduct.

That after  the said meeting,  the Respondent  did not  communicate  to him  its  outcome.  That this prompted  him to write  to the Respondent  on 23. 7.2020.  That the  said letter  has never been  responded to.

That his  continued exclusion from management  committee meetings  constitute  constructive  suspension  from the Board.

Respondent’s  Contention

Vide the Replying  Affidavit sworn  by James  Giting’a on 21. 9.2020, the Respondent  has opposed the Application  on the grounds:

That  the Claimant, who  was  its  Vice Chairman, was,  during  his tenure  involved  in gross  misconduct  which informed  the management  committee  to summon  him to  appear  before  the Board  to  answer  the  said allegations.

That  on 15. 7.2020,  the Board  met and the Claimant  was amongst  the  members present.   That among  the issues  deliberated  by the Board  was the  accusation  of the Claimant  for gross- misconduct.

That the Claimant  was never at  any point  in time chased out  the  meeting as the  charges  were read  to him and  granted  an opportunity  to defend  himself.

That after  deliberation, the Board  members  voted  in favour  of  his suspension.

That upon  suspension,  the Claimant  can only  resume  office  upon  deliberation  by  the Annual  General  Meeting.

That it has not been  possible  to  convene the said  meeting  due to  restrictions relating  to Covid- 19 pandemic.

That in the  circumstances, the Claimant’s  suspension  is valid  as the Respondent followed  due process  in doing so.

Claimant’s Supplementary  Affidavit

Vide the  Supplementary  Affidavit  sworn  on  18. 11. 2020,  the Claimant  has rebutted  the averments  made by the  Respondent vide the  foregoing  Replying  Affidavit  and state  thus:

That his complaint  was dismissed  in the meeting held on  26. 2.2020.

That  he has  never been  summoned  for any disciplinary  meeting  or account  of his conduct. That he has  never seen  annexture  JGG3.

That  annexture  JGG4 has  been fabricated. That  items  4,  and 5 were  not the original notice  sent out  to  the Board.

That it  is not true  that he  sat  throughout the  meeting  of  15. 7.2020. that he was, instead,  ordered to  step out.

That,  it indeed  he had sat throughout  the meeting,  he would  have been  entitled  to  an allowance. That  he was  not paid  any allowance.

Respondent’s further Affidavit

Vide the  Affidavit  sworn by  James Giting’a  on  2/12. 2020, the Respondent  has rebutted  the contentions  made by  the Claimant vide his  supplementary  Affidavit referred  to above.

Issues  for determination

The Claimant’s  determination  has presented  the following  issues for determination:

a. Whether  the Claimant has laid  a proper  basis to warrant  the grant  of the Orders  sought;

b. Who should meet  the costs of suit?

Temporary injunction

The  Orders  sought  by the Claimant are  in the nature  of a temporary  injunction. What  is the law then as regards temporary  injunctions?

Temporary injunction

We have  jurisdiction  to make  an order  regarding  temporary  injunctions  by dint  of order 40  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. Order  40  Rule 1  (a) provides  thus:

“ Where  in any suit  it is proved  by Affidavit or otherwise –

(a) That  any property  in dispute  in a suit is  in  danger  of being  wasted,  damaged, or alienated  by any party to  the  suit, or wrongly sold in execution of a decree,  the court may  by order  grant  a temporary  injunction to  restrain  such  act, or  make such  other  order  for the purpose  of staying  and preventing  the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale,  removal, or disposition of the property  as the court thinks fit, until  the disposal  of the  suit  or until further  orders.

Before  exercising  the above  jurisdiction,  we are  guided  by  the Principles  enunciated  by the court in  the case of  Giella – versus-  Cassman  Brown [1973] EA. They  include:

(a)  A prima facie case  with a probability  of success;

(b) Irreparable  damage; and

(c) Balance  of Convenience.

The court   in the  case of Mrao  Limited  versus  first  American Bank  of Kenya  Limited (2003) eKLR explained what  Constitute  a Prima Facie  case  in the following terms:

“.......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......”

Prima facie case

Flowing  from the  decision  of the court  in the Mrao case above,  it is apparent  that  for a party  to  prove  existence  of a prima facie  case with probability  of success,  he or she  has to demonstrate  existence  of a right which  has been trampled  by the opposing party so as to call  for explanation.  The question  arises  therefore as  to whether  the Claimant  has established  the existence  of the said  right  so as to call  for our intervention  at this stage.

It  is the claimant’s  contention  that  he has been suspended  by the Respondent  constructively  without  being afforded  an opportunity  to defend  himself.  That the  Respondent’s  Management  Committee  ordered  him out  of the meeting  held on  15. 7.2020 on account  of the fact that  it  wanted to discuss  his conduct.  That after  the said  deliberations, no  communication was given  to him.

On   rebuttal,  the Respondent denied  the allegations  made  by the  Claimant  and aver that  the Claimant  was taken  through  due process before  being  suspended  from its  management  committee.  That he  was never  chased away  in the meeting  held on 15. 7.2020.

We have perused  the Replying  Affidavit  sworn by  James  Giting’a  Gathiru on 2. 9.2021. Annexture  JGG-3 thereof is a letter  addressed  to the Claimant  dated 7. 7.2020.  The said  letter  is a summons  addressed  to the Claimant  asking  him to appear  and show cause  why  section  53  (b)  (1)  of its  by-laws  should  not be invoked  by the Board. The said letter was copied  to the Director  of Co-operatives, Nyeri County and  the Mathira  East  Sub –county  Co-operative  Officer.

Annexture  JGG-4 is a Notice  dated  13. 7.2020. The  said  Notice  is calling  and/or  convening  the Respondent’s  Board Meeting  to be held  on 15. 7.2020. Agenda 5  of the said  Notice  is titled.

“ Gross  misconduct  by the vice-chairman”

Annexture  JGG-5are the minutes  of the Respondent  arising  out of the said  meeting.  At  Min. 89/mgm/2020,  the conduct  of the  Claimant  is discussed. In  the pertinent  part,  the minute reads;

“ The accusations were  read to the  vice-chairman. He  was then given  a chance  to defend  himself  against  the accusations.  The vice  chairman  did not  deny  any of  these  accusations.”

Looking  at these  annextures in light  of the averment  made by  the Claimant,  we draw  the following  conclusions:

a. That  the claimant  was well  aware  about the accusations  leveled against  him.

b. That he  was aware  that part  of the agenda  Board meeting of  15. 7.2020 was to discuss his  conduct  as a member  of the Board.

c. That the Claimant  attended  the said meeting  where  allegations  of gross-misconduct  were read  to  him.

d. That he did  not deny  the  said allegations.

Looking  at these  conclusions  in light  of  the current Application, it is apparent  that the  Claimant  has not established  existence  of a right  that the Respondent  has violated  so as to call for our protection  at  this interlocutory  stage.  The material  placed before  us point  to a situation  where  the Claimant  was taken  through  due process  before  being  suspended  from the  Respondents  Board.  We say  so noting  that we  are drawing  inferences from  material  presented  to as in affidavit  form.  We are yet  to hear the claim  on merits  whereupon  witnesses  will be examined  to test  the veracity  of the material  presented  and the allegations  made.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  do not find merit  in the Claimants Application  dated 20. 8.2020 and hereby  dismiss  it with costs  in the cause.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH  DAY OF  MARCH,  2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA   CHAIRPERSON   SIGNED  4. 3.2021

HON. J. MWATSAMA  DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED  4. 3.2021

B. AKUSALA     MEMBER   SIGNED  4. 3.2021

Karuga  Munya  for Claimant

Mention  for Pre- trial  on 26. 5.2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA  CHAIRPERSON    SIGNED  4. 3.2021