Kenpipe Co-operative Saving and Credit Society v Daniel Githinji Waiganjo [2019] KECPT 61 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 223 OF 2011

KENPIPE  CO-OPERATIVE  SAVING  AND CREDIT  SOCIETY...CLAIMANT

VERSUS

DANIEL  GITHINJI WAIGANJO.....................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter  for determination  is a bill of cost  dated  17. 4.19.

The parties  canvassed  the same  by way of written  submissions. The Respondent/applicant filed  written submissions  on 30. 7.19 and submitted  that the  subject  matter of  the  claim  was refund  of Kshs.11,250,000/=.

That the instructions fees  was based  on paragraph  8 schedule 11 and Kshs.100,000/= was reasonable  since the matter  was complex  and voluminous  documents  were filed.

The claimant  filed  written submissions on 14. 6.19 and contends item 1.

That  since the  suit was  dismissed,  the subject  matter became  unascertainable  based  on this,  the  amount  under  item 1  should be  taxed  at Kshs.40,000/=.

We have  noted that  the  matter  at the beginning  of the  suit  was Kshs.11,250,000/- as per  the pleadings. The claimant  failed to prove  their case  on the required  standard  hence the  matter  was dismissed. The fact that  the  matter was  defended  and  dismissed proves that  the defence  raised  was  good enough  to  have the  dismissal  and to win  the matter. In this  case,  the respondent  must have  put  in a lot of effort  to counter  the case  as filed and  succeeded  in defending  the subject  matter as filed.  Since at  the  onset, the subject  matter was  ascertained, the dismissal cannot  and should  not tender  the subject  matter  ascertainable  as submitted  by the claimant. Hence  the subject  matter  remains  ascertained.

The amount  of money  involved  was  substantial  hence this  brings  the  nature  and importance  of the cause  on a higher  level  of the  instances  of fraud,  theft  and illegality had been proved, then the Respondent would  have  been  found liable. This  made   the defence  of the claim  of important  and the amount  sought  in item 1 is within  the recommended  amount  as per the  Remuneration  order  schedule  11 Paragraph 8.

In light  of the above  and having  considered  the submissions  of  both parties,  we find the  item 1 Kshs. 100,000/= reasonable in the circumstances.

For item 2  and  6,  8 and 23 the same  are  taxed  off.  Item 3  is an attendance  and it is awarded  as  it is,  also item  5,9,10.

Item 4,7,11,13 and 22 are allowed  at Kshs.1400/= each for service.

Items  12 is allowed  at Kshs.4000/= while  item 14  is reduced  to Kshs.1200/= and same  is awarded  for  item 15 and  17 each.  Item  16 is reduced  to Kshs.500/= and the same  amount  is awarded  for  items  18,19,20 and  21.

Court fees  are awarded  as prayed.   The out of pocket  expenses is not  supported  by any documents. There is also justification for the increase  by ½ (half) and the 16% VAT.

We therefore  tax  the bill  of costs  at Kshs.118,645/=.

Read and delivered in open court, this 7th of November 2019.

In the presence of:

Applicant /Respondent: Mbuthia holding brief for Kamau for the Respondent.

Respondent/Claimant:Wangui holding brief for Milimo for Claimant.

Court Assistant:Leweri and Buluma.

B.Kimemia  -  Chairman-Signed.

R.Mwambura -  Member-Signed.

P.Swanya  - Member-Signed.