Linus Labanson Murithi & Peter Omondi Okal v Mwalimu National Sacco Society Ltd & Joseph Musee Kula [2020] KECPT 73 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI TRIBUNAL CASE NO.  141  OF 2017

LINUS  LABANSON  MURITHI...................................................1ST  CLAIMANT

PETER  OMONDI  OKAL.............................................................2ND CLAIMANT

VERSUS

MWALIMU  NATIONAL  SACCO

SOCIETY LTD..............................................................................1ST RESPONDENT

JOSEPH MUSEE  KULA............................................................2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

What is  coming up  for  consideration  and  determination  is the Claimant’s Application  dated  24. 9.2019. It seeks, in the main, the following reliefs:

1. That the Tribunal  to review  and/or  set  aside  the judgment  delivered  on  8. 1.2019;

2. That the Tribunal  be pleased  to  issue  a full and final  judgment  as prayed  in  the statement  of  claim; and

3. Costs.

The Application is supported  by the grounds  on its face  and the Affidavit  sworn by  Linus  Labanson  Murithi  on even  date, that  is,  24. 9.2019.

It is the Claimant’s case that the judgment  delivered  by the Tribunal, differently constituted, is  tainted with illegality. That  on 8. 1.2019, the Tribunal  delivered  judgment granting  the 1st Respondent  45  days  to file  more documents  proving  its  defence.  That there is  no way  the  1st  Respondent  can  lawfully  comply  with  the direction  because;

1. They had  informed  the Tribunal  that they  were not filing more documents;

2. The window for filing  documents  had closed;

3. The said  documents,  if  produced,  would  be  fictitious;

4. Any event, they have  not  filed  documents  within the  45 days  directed by the  Tribunal.

1st Respondent’s case

The  1st  Respondent  has  opposed  the Application  by filing statement  of Grounds  of Opposition   dated  11. 12. 2019 and a Replying  Affidavit sworn by  S.J. Saenyi  on  16. 1.2020.  Vide the said Grounds of Opposition    the 1st Respondent contend thus:

i. That the Application, as filed, does not  meet the condition  precedent  for review;  and

ii. That  the Application  is an  afterthought, fictitious  and  an abuse  of court process.

Vide the Replying  Affidavit,  the 1st Respondent  contend  that  it  is true that that vide  the  judgment delivered on  8. 1.18,  the  Tribunal  directed  the  1st  Respondent  to  file additional  documents  in defence  of  its  case  within  45 days. That between  February, 2018 and June, 2018, the firm  of Advocates on  record for the  1st  Respondent  acquired  new offices  at  4th  Avenue  Towers thus  necessitating  relocation  from its  office.

That  due to impending  relocation, many  of their  files, either  got  misplaced,  or  erroneously  marked  as closed.  That this current file was  erroneously  marked  as  closed.  That it has  taken  long to  sort  out the files and subsequently  tracing  the file  relating  to the instant case.  That on or about  May,  2019, the said firm of  Advocates  sought to  peruse the Tribunal’s  file to ascertain  its last position  only to realize  that  judgment  had already  been entered  and one of  the orders was  filing  of  more documents.

2nd  Respondent’s  Case

The  2nd Respondent did not  participate  in  this Application  in any way.

Written  submissions

Vide  the directions  given  on  11. 12. 2019,  the Application was  disposed of by way  of  written  submissions. The Claimant’s  filed theirs  on  6. 3.2020 while  the  1st  Respondent  did so on  2. 3.2020. We  will consider  the same while  determining  the issues  presented  by the Application  below.

Issues  of determination

We have  framed  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the claimant  has laid  a proper  basis  to  warrant  the  review of the judgment  delivered  on8. 1.2019;and

b. Who  should  bear  the costs  of  the Application.

Review  of Judgment

This  Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to  review  and/or  set aside judgment  by dint  of section  80 of the Civil Procedure  Act  (Cap  80) Laws of Kenya  and Order  45  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. Order  45  Rule  1 (a) provides  in this regard as follows:

“ Any person  considering  himself  aggrieved; as by a decree or  order  from which  an Appeal is  allowed,  but  from which  no Appeal  has been  preferred  and  who, from the discovery  of new and  important  matter or  evidence  which, after the exercise  of due  diligence, was not  within  his  knowledge  or could not  be produced  by him  at  the time  when the decree  was  passed  or  the order made,  or on  account  of some  mistake  or error  apparent  on  the face  of the record  or  for any sufficient  reason, …may  apply  for a review  of the judgment…”

Thus, for a party to succeed  in  an Application  for review  of a  judgment, he/she  has to demonstrate  the existence  of any  of the following  elements;

a. Discovery  of new  and  important  matter;

b. Mistake  or error  apparent  on the  face of  the record; and

c. Sufficient  reason.

Superior  courts  have  sought  to interpret  the meaning  of these principles  as follows;

Discovery  of  new and  important  matter

In the case  of Evans  Bwire  Vs  Andrew  Aginda, Civil  Appeal  No.  147  of  2006 , the  Court of Appeal  held thus;

“An Application  for Review  will  only be  allowed on strong  grounds particularly  if its  effect  will amount  to  re-opening  the  Application  or case  a fresh.”

Mistake  or error  apparent  on  the record

The court  defined  this in  the case of  Nyamogo  & Nyamogo  Vs  Kogo [2001] East Africa  170as Follows;

“An  error  apparent  on the face of the record  cannot be  defined  precisely  or exhaustively,  there being  an element  of un-definitiveness inherit  in its very nature  and it  must be determined  judicially  or on the facts  of each  case. There  is a real  distinction  between  a mere erroneous  decision  and an  error  apparent  on the face of  the record. Where  an error  on a substantial  point  of law stares one  in the face  and there could  reasonably  be number  two (2) opinions, a clear  case of error  apparent  on the face of  the  record would  be made out. An  error which  has to be established  by long drawn  process  of  reasoning  on points where there  may  conceivably  be two opinions  can  hardly  be said  to be an error apparent  on the face of the record. Again, if a view  adopted by the court in the original  record is  a possible  one,  it cannot  be an error  on the face  of the  record  even though  another  view  was possible. Mere error  or wrong  view  is  certainly no ground  for  review  though it may be  one  for Appeal.”

Sufficient  reason

The  court held, as  regards to this,  in the case of Jaden  Mohamed  Versus  Charan  Singh & Another  thus;

“Any  other sufficient  reason for  the purposes  of  review  refers to the grounds  analogous  to the other  two  (for example  error apparent  on the face  of  the record  and discovery  of  new important matter.”)

Taking  into account the provisions  of the law above  and the pronouncements  of the  courts  the question  that arises  is whether  the Claimant  has laid  a basis  for review  of  judgment.  From our  appreciation  of the  instant Application, it is  manifest  that the Claimant  has taken  issue  with the  Tribunal’s  decision  to allow  the Respondent  to  file  documents  yet the 1st  Respondent  had indicated  during  pre-trial that  they were  not going  to file  any additional  documents. The Claimant  avers  that the  1st Respondent  cannot lawfully  comply  with  the order  as it had  clearly  indicated  that  it  was not going  to file further  documents. Secondly, they claim that  if the said  documents  are  filed,  the window for doing  so will  have already  been closed.

At paragraph  3 of the Supporting  Affidavit,  the claimant  avers thus;

“That  I was  and still….shocked  that the  Tribunal  gave the 1st  Respondents  leeway to  bring  in more documents  to  prove   their  defence  after hearing…”

At paragraph 4, of the said Affidavit the 1st Claimant avers  thus;

“That I have  been informed  by our Advocates, which  information  I verily  believe  to be  true  and  correct, …..such an act  is extremely  irregular  and illegal…..”

We have perused the judgment delivered on 8. 1.2018. We note that the Tribunal delivered judgment on merit. It considered the pleadings filed and  the evidence  adduced  by  both  parties. Whilst  in the process  of making  its final orders,  the Tribunal  noted that  the  exact  date of default was not disclosed  by the parties, both in  their  documents  and evidence. At paragraph  17  of  the Judgment, the Tribunal  held thus;

“ We have  seen the Affidavit  filed on 17. 5.2017 where  at  paragraph  5  the  1st Respondent  states  that the 2nd  Respondent  defaulted  “beginning of  2012. ” This  does not  state which month  of  2012 this was.  The  society  must have calculated  interest  from a  specific  date.  In the evidence  adduced  by both sides.  We were not told  how much  remained  unpaid  at the time of default.  The figure,  would  have helped  the Tribunal  to determine  how much  was payable  by the guarantors after  the shares and deposits  were  attached.  The burden of  adducing  this  evidence  fell with the  1st  Respondent  as the custodian  of  records. This lack  of information  has left  us in a situation  where  we cannot  make final orders.  It is  our view  that the  1st  Respondent  needs to disclose  the figures  mentioned  above. After  taking  into these  accounts,  the matter should  be mentioned  before  the Tribunal  for final orders”

Contrary  to the contention  that the  1st  Respondent  had  been  granted  a window  to file  additional  documents  to strengthen  its defence, our  understanding  of the orders  of the Tribunal  is that in  the  midst  of the evidence  tendered  by both  parties, there  is not  enough  material  available  to  enable  it  determine  fully  the issues  in  controversy. It is  on this basis  that it called  for additional  documents  to  be availed  by the  1st  Respondent, which  is  the custodian  of the said  documents.  Can this  decision  of the Tribunal  be said  to be an  error  apparent  on the face of  the record? Our answer  is a resounding  NO.  The  Tribunal  fully considered  the material  before  it  and  arrived  at this finding.

Further, we  find that the  claimants have not  presented  “sufficient  reasons” to warrant  a review  of the said  judgment.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we do not  find merit in the Claimant’s  Application  dated 24. 9.2019 and hereby  dismiss  it with costs  to the  1st  Respondent.

Read and delivered in  accordance  with the guidelines  issued  by  the Hon. Chief Justice  on 15. 3.2020, this 9thday of April, 2020.

Prepared by Hon. B.Kimemia Chairman, Hon. F. Terer Deputy Chairman, P. Gichuki Member.

With consent  of the parties, the  final orders  to be delivered  by email, as accordance  to the prevailing  measures  during  the covid-19.

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairman                              Signed      9. 4.2020

Hon. F. Terer                Deputy Chairman               Signed      9. 4.2020

P. Gichuki                     Member                                Signed      9. 4.2020