Konza Ranching & Farming Co-Operative Society Limited v John Kimeu Muindi, Robert Nzuki Kametu & Purity Mutheu Mutua [2021] KECPT 272 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.496 OF 2020

KONZA  RANCHING  &  FARMING  CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY  LIMITED ...........................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

JOHN  KIMEU  MUINDI............................................................1ST RESPONDENT

ROBERT  NZUKI  KAMETU....................................................2ND RESPONDENT

PURITY  MUTHEU  MUTUA...................................................3RD  RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Application  for determination  is one dated  24. 11. 2020 it is brought  under Order  Rule  1 and  2  Order 51  Rule  1 Civil Procedure  Rules 2010, Section  3A, Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 and all other  enabling  provisions and seeks  for orders:

a. That  the Application  be heard  ex-parte  in the first  instance  and the same  be certified  as urgent.

b. That pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application, the  1st,  2nd and  3rd  Defendants /Respondents  by themselves  or through  their agents,  servants or assigns  be  restrained  from trespassing  upon,  constructing , developing , selling, offering  for sale, transferring, leasing,  charging  or in any  way  interfering  with plot  No. 213  Makueni  or any party  thereof and from  harassing,  threatening,  intimidating  or in  any way  causing  disharmony  to the Applicant or its members.

c. That  pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application, the 1st  Respondent  be ordered  to remove  the 2nd  and 3rd  Respondents that he  illegally  installed in plot No.  213  or any party  thereof in default  of which  the said  persons  be evicted  forthwith by  the Claimant.

d. That  the OCS  Machakos  Police Station  does enforce  the orders  of this Honourable  court.

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

2. The Application  is premised  on the grounds  on the  face of  the Application to wit the Claimant/Applicant is a Co-operative  society  duly registered  with some  aim of  providing  land and housing  to its members.

The Claimant  is the legal  owner  of plot No.  213  Makueni to which it  resolved  to sub-divide  and allocate  it to its  members  using  ballot  papers.

That  the 1st  Respondent  working  in cohorts  with  2nd and 3rd  Respondent  who were not  members  of the Claimant  fraudulently  picked  2  ballot  papers  No.  213 and 214.

Efforts  by the Claimant/  Applicant  to obtain  assistance  in  removing  the  2nd  and  3rd  Respondent  from the said  plots  have proceed  futile.

3. The Application  is supported  by the  Affidavit  of  D.M Mutagili who  is the Chairman  of the Claimant.

Plot  No. 213  was held  in  trust  for its members  following  a resolution  of Claimant  members  passed  at a Special  General Meeting on 18. 12. 1999. each member of the Claimant  was allotted  2 acres.

That  upon completion  of the sub-division  Claimant  prepared ballot  papers  for its members  for easy  distribution  of  plots.

The 1st  Respondent  who is  member  of  Claimant  was to pick only one ballot however in cohorts with 2nd and 3rd  Respondents  he picked  2 ballots  papers  No. 213 and 214.

1st  Respondent  unlawfully installed  plot  No.  213  to the  2nd and  3rd Respondents.

The  1st  Respondent  on being  questioned  by Claimant  on how  he got 2  ballot  papers  he admitted  he had fraudulently  taken  2  ballot papers  and agreed  to  surrender  plot No. 213.

The 1st  Respondent  swore  an Affidavit  to that effect  marked  ‘DMM3’

When time came for 1st Respondent  to be allocated  10. 8acres plot he cunningly  evaded efforts  by Claimant  to hive off  2 acres originally agreed  in his sworn Affidavit.

Claimant/ Applicant  has unsuccessfully  tried   to  evict  the  2nd and  3rd  Respondent  however they have  not managed  and are  apprehensive   to lose  their  property, exposed  to  imminent  danger  and more  so stand  to suffer  irreparable  loss.

4. The  1st Respondent  responded  to the Application  by filing  Grounds  of Opposition  dated  1. 3.2021  on  2. 3.2021.

In  the said  Grounds  of Opposition  he stated  the Application  was  incompetent  and  abuse  of the Tribunal  process.

The orders  sought  in the Application  are similar  to those  in the Statement of  Claim  as such  granting  the orders  would amount  to allowing  the  Statement  of Claim  without  parties  giving  evidence.

The Claimant  filed  a response  to the  Grounds of  Opposition  sworn  on  22. 3.2021  and filed  on even  date.  He reiterated contents  of his  Affidavit  in support  of the Application  and added that  the Affidavit  of the 1st  Respondent annexed  in his Affidavit sworn  on 24. 11. 2020  marked  as DMM3 admitted  to fraud  and the court  should not  be taken into  a rigorous trial  process   on  issues  which  have already  been admitted  by a party.

5.  The 1st Respondent  filed a  further Affidavit  in response and stated  parcel no. 213  Makueni  was legally  allocated  to him.

That  he did not  admit  in writing  the particulars of  fraud  complained  if by the  Claimant and  would seek  to cross examine  the Advocate  who allegedly  drafted  the Affidavit.

That  the 2nd and  3rd  Respondent  are legally  on the suit  property  since  year  2000 and will  suffer  irreparably  if orders  sought  are  granted  at an interlocutory  stage.

That  the 1st Respondent never  relinquished  his rights  one land  parcel  NO.  213  Makueni.

Parties  were directed  to file  written submissions  to dispense  off the application  and as such the  Claimant /Applicant  filed their  written  submissions dated  22. 3.2020  on  23. 3.2021  and 1st respondent  filed their  written submissions  dated  21. 5.2021on 26. 5.2021.

The  2nd  and 3rd  Respondent  did not  enter  Appearance  in the matter  to the said  Application.

6. Analysis

Having  considered  the pleading, Affidavit and submissions  of all the parties  we note  the issues  to be addressed  are:

Issue one:

TRESPASS:  is there  trespass  by  2nd and  3rd  Respondent

Issue  two: Whether  Interlocutory  Orders should  be issued  against  the Respondent.

Issue One:

Section  3 (1)  Trespass  Act Cap  294 provides  that:

“Any person who without  reasonable  excuse  enters  is or remains  upon  or erects  any  structure on or  cultivates or  tills  or grazes  stock  or permits  stock  to  be or,  private  and without  the consent  of the  occupier  thereof  shall  be guilty  of an offence..”

The 2nd and  3rd  Respondent  who are  the ‘trespassers’  in this  case  were served  with  the application  as per the  affidavit of service  of Alphonse Kyalo  Kasimu filed  on 1. 3.2021  but failed to  enter appearance  or file a response  to the Application.

The  2nd and 3rd  Respondent  are  in occupation of  the  land in question and Applicant  seeks  for orders  the 1st , 2nd  and  3rd  Respondent be restrained  from  trespassing, constructing, developing, selling, offering for sale, transferring, leasing,  charging  or in any  way  interfering  with plot  No. 213  Makueni  or any party  thereof and from  harassing,  threatening,  intimidating  or in  any way  causing  disharmony  to the Applicant or its members.

And secondly the Applicant  wishes  for the 1st  Respondent  to be ordered  to remove  the  2nd  and  3rd  Respondent  since he  is  the one who  illegally instructed  them  in  plot No.  213.

7. We have considered  the Applicant’s  case  as pleaded  and evidence  tendered  against  the 1st , 2nd and 3rd  Respondent  in form of  annextures  to the Affidavits  by the Claimant  and  would wish  to state as follows:

Trespass  has been  defined  as any unjustifiable  intrusion  by one  person  upon  the land  in the possession  of another  see Clerk and Lindsell  on Torts , 18  edition  page  923.

The onus  is on the  Applicant  to prove  he is the owner  of the property  in question  and that  the Respondent  have invaded  and occupied the same  without  any justifiable  cause.

8.  From  the Affidavits  what is clear  the  land  where  the 2nd and 3rd  Respondent  are belonged  to the Applicant.

The  2nd and  3rd  Respondent  got into  the land  by  virtue  of  1st  Respondent.

For  some reason  they did  not  find it fit  to  respond  to the Application  and the 1st Respondent  as it  were  from  his Affidavits  and responses  is the  one pleading  their case.

It is  yet  to be established  whether  the Respondent trespassed  in the land  if at all.

In  our  view  this  can only  be done  during trial.

9. Issue No. 2

Whether Interlocutory  Orders can  be  issued.

For any Application  to be granted  orders  and injunctions  the law  is well articulated  in the case  of Giella  - vs-  Cassman  Brown  and Company Limited [1973] EA 358  where  the court held  the Applicant  must establish.

1. Prima facie  case

2. Harm- suffer irreparable harm not adequately compensated  for in damages.

3. Balance  of  convenience ...who is  likely  to suffer  prejudice  in orders  are given  or  not.

In the  Application  before us  the question  to ask  is whether a  prima facie  case been  established  by the  Applicant?

A prima facie  case was  defined  by the Court of appeal  in  the case of  Mrao  Limited  -vs- first  American Bank of Kenya  Limited and  2 others  [2003] KLR 1215as:

“  A Prima facie case  in a civil  Application  includes  but  is not confined  to a “genuine” and “arguable case”. It is a case  which,  on the material  presented  to the court,  a tribunal  property  directing  itself  will  conclude that there exists a right which has  apparently  been infringed  by the  opposite party as  to call for  an explanation or rebuttal  from the latter.”

Indeed  the Applicant  has established  a  case  against  the 1st  2nd and  3rd  Respondent.

2nd question- has  the Applicant  illustrated  they shall  suffer  irreparable harm that would not adequately  be compensated  for in damages.?

The harm  to this  end  would  mean  the Applicant  has lost  land which  in our view  can be compensated.

3rd question – on the issue  of balance  of convenience, the  same tilts  in favour  of the Claimant/Applicant  being  the aggrieved  party and having  evidenced  the  same. The  1st  Respondent has not shown  that they will  suffer harm/prejudice  if the Applicants  are granted  the injunctive  reliefs.

10. Upshot

In view  of the  foregoing  we find  the Notice of Motion  dated 24. 11. 2020   has merit  and grant the following  orders  as per Rule  3 and 4  Co-operative  Tribunal (Practice and Procedure Rules) 2009.

1. Pending  hearing and determination  of the suit  herein  the 1st , 2nd and 3rd  Respondents  are restrained  from developing  selling,  offering  for sale,  transferring, leasing , charging  plot  No. 213  Makueni.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually  at Nairobi this 29thday of July, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  29. 7.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson Signed  29. 7.2021

Mr. Gitonga Kamiti   Member   Signed  29. 7.2021

Tribunal Clerk   Charles  Maina

Sagini holding  brief for  Orina  for Claimant/Respondent

Nyaata  Advocate  for Respondent

Mention  for Pre-trial  on 17. 9.2021

Parties  to file witness statement  and documents  within  30 days  herein.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  29. 7.2021