Lydia Atieno Wesonga v Taraji Sacco Society Limited [2019] KECPT 34 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT KISUMU

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 146 OF 2018

LYDIA ATIENO WESONGA.............................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TARAJI SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED........................................RESPONDENT

RULING

What is before us for consideration  and determination  is the Respondent’s  application dated  3. 9.2019. it seeks ,  in the main,  an order  that the  Tribunal  be pleased to vary, set aside  and/or  review  the orders  made on 15. 8.19.

The application is supported by  the grounds  on its face  and the supporting  affidavit  of Emmanuel  Stephen  Oluoch sworn  on even  date(3. 9.19)

The claimant  has opposed  the application  by filing  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn by  herself  on 7. 10. 19.

Directions  on filing  of written  submissions.

On  8. 10. 19,  the Tribunal  directed  parties to file  and serve written  submissions,  with the  Respondent going first.  The Respondent  filed  its submissions on 23. 10. 19 while the  claimant  has not.

Respondent’s case

It is  the Respondent’s case that  the Ruling  delivered  by the Honorable  Tribunal  on 15. 8.19 was arrived at  out of  an error  apparent  on the face of  the record.  It avers that the Tribunal  did not  take into account  the contents  of its affidavit  of means sworn  by Emmanuel Stephen Oluoch  on  30. 5.19. It avers  that the said  affidavit  was filed  on 6. 6.19.  It thus  contend that the orders  made   vide the said  ruling  directing  it to pay a monthly  sum of Kshs.50,000/= towards  settlement  of the decretal  amount  were  arrived at  without  taking  into account  the contents of the said  Affidavit of means.

The Respondent  contend  that  it is financially  constrained  and that it cannot  raise  the sum of  Kshs.50,000/= ordered  by the Tribunal. It  contend that  the Sacco  is financially  strapped  as it has been overburdened  by the  many claims  made by  its other members. It avers  that owing to its current  financial  position its  able to  raise a monthly  sum  of Kshs.50,000/=.

Claimant’s  case

Vide  her Replying  Affidavit, the  claimant  has opposed  the application  on grounds  that the same  lacks  merit  as the Respondent  had,  prior,  to  delivery  of the impugned  ruling,  made a similar  offer  of Kshs.8000/= She avers  that  if  the  respondent  is unable  to raise  the monthly  sum  of Kshs.50,000/=, then  it should  be wound up.

Further, she  avers  that the respondent  did not  attach  the various  bank  accounts  of the  Sacco to show  its financial  position. It is  thus her prayer  that  the instant  application  be dismissed.

Issues for determination

The  Respondent’s  application  dated 3. 9.19 has raised the following  issues for determination;

(a) Whether  the Respondent  has laid  a proper  basis  to warrant  a review  and/or  variation of the ruling  delivered  on 15. 8.19; and

(b) What  orders  commend  itself  in the circumstances.

Review

This  Tribunal  has  jurisdiction  to  review  its orders  by dint of section  80 of the Civil Procedure  Act  (cap 21) Laws of Kenya and order  45  Rule  (1) of the Civil  Procedure  Rules.  Section 80  provides as follows:

“Any person who  considers  himself  aggrieved – by  a decree  or orders from  which an appeal  is allowed  by this Act,  but from which  no appeal  has been preferred, may  apply  for a review  of judgment  to the court  which  passed  the decree  or made  the order; and  the court  may make such  thereon as  it thinks  fit”.

Likewise ,  order 45 Rule  1 (a) provides  that;

“Any person  considering  himself  aggrieved – (a) by a decree  or order  from which  an appeal  is allowed, but  from which  no appeal  has been preferred, and  who  from 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  other  sufficient  reason….may  apply  for a review  of judgment  to the  court which  passed  the decree  or  made  the order  without  unreasonable  delay”

From  the above  provision, it  is trite  that a party  can  move  court  for review  of judgment  and/or  order  based  on the following  grounds:

(a) Upon  discovery  of new  and important  matter;

(b) When  the decree  or order  was made  as a result  of some  mistake  or error  apparent  on the face of the record;

(c) For sufficient  reason.

Applying  these  principles  to the facts of this case  the question  that we ask  ourselves  is whether  the instant application  meets  the threshold  set out  in these  provisions. To answer this question satisfactorily, we set out the grave man  in the application.

From  our appreciation of the grounds in  its support  and the supporting  affidavit of Emmanuel Stephen  Oluoch, It is  apparent  that the  Respondent  is aggrieved  by the fact  that the Ruling  of 15. 8.19 was delivered  without  the Tribunal  taking  into account the averments  contained  in his affidavit of means sworn  on  30. 5.19.  It  avers  that the said  Affidavit  had  been  filed prior  to  delivery  of the Ruling.  He has annexed  the said  Affidavit  of means as “ESO-1”.

Further,  the Respondent  claim  that it is  not able  to implement  the award  of Kshs.50,000/= made  vide  the Ruling  delivered  on 15. 8.19 as  it is  struggling  financially. It avers  that  it is currently  settling  many  claims  filed  by its members  and that  for it  to run  smoothly, the figure  of  Kshs.50,000/=  ought to be reviewed downwards  to Kshs.8000/= per month.

We have  considered  the application,  the said  grounds  in its support,  the supporting  affidavit of Emmanuel  Stephen  Oluoch, the  Replying  Affidavit of  the claimant and the written  submissions of the Respondent filed on  23. 10. 19.

Further, we have perused  and considered  the Respondent’s  Affidavit  of means  sworn  on 30. 5.19.  It is  manifest  that the instant  claim is  for refund  of  shares. It is also  trite  that  the claimant  has moved  court and  secured  judgment  against the  Respondent.

Ipso  facto,  she is  entitled  to fully enjoy  the fruits  of her judgment.

However,  owing  to the circumstances  of the case,  the Tribunal  on 15. 8.19 deemed  it fit to  direct  that  the  said award  be defrayed  by way  of monthly  installments  of Kshs.50,000/=. The  Respondent wants  this figure  to be scaled  down  further  to  Kshs.8000/= per month.

The Tribunal  has taken into  account  the Respondent’s financial  position  and note that  the initial  order  for payment  of Kshs.50,000/=  may cause  financial  strain  to the  Respondent. This  is  more  so owing  to the fact  that it has  many  pending  claims of  refunds to other  members  as  demonstrated  in the list annexed  therein.

We thus deem it  that the interest  of justice  will be served  if the earlier  amount  is reviewed  downwards  to Kshs. 25,000/=. The Respondent  to pay  this figure  (Kshs.25,000/=) until  it fully settles  the decretal  amount.

Since  the current  application  has caused  unnecessary  expense  on the part of  the claimant, we order  the Respondent  to meet  the cost of  the  application assessed  at that sum of  Kshs.5000/= orders  accordingly.

Payments  to be made on the  30th  day of  every  succeeding  month. Payment  to take  effect  on  30. 12. 19.

Ruling read and delivered in open court, this 6th  day of   December 2019

In the presence of :

Claimant                  : Present

Respondent             : Present

Court Assistant       : Charles Maina

Hon.B.Kimemia  -  Chairman:

Signed

Hon.F. Terer  -  Deputy Chairman:

Signed

P.Swanya -  Member:

Signed