Mary Nyambura Githua v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited & Samuel Ngundo Maina [2020] KECPT 2 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENY

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.723 OF 2019

MARY NYAMBURA GITHUA.....................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

URITHI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY LIMITED........................................................1ST  RESPONDENT

SAMUEL  NGUNDO  MAINA......................................2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

What is before us for consideration and determination is the Claimant’s Application dated 20. 8.2019 as amended  on 6. 12. 2019. It seeks, in the main, for the following Orders:

1.  Spent;

2.  Spent;

3. Spent;

4. That a temporary  injunction  do issue  restraining  the Respondents whether  by  themselves, their servants, employees, agents and/or  by whomsoever from entering  onto,  selling  alienating,  transferring , on the Claimant’s  parcel  of land known  as Plot  No. 11 on JUJA/KOMO BLOCK  1/3452 on  OLIVE GARDENS PHASE  III  pending  the hearing  and determination  of the main suit;

5. That  a temporary  injunction  do issue  restraining  the Respondents  whether  by  themselves, their servants, employees, agents and/or  by whomsoever from  mortgaging, leasing, renting  the Claimant’s parcel  of land known as Plot  No. 11 on  JUJA/KOMO BLOCK  1/3452 on OLIVE GARDENS PHASE III pending  the hearing  and determination  of the main  suit; and

6.  That the Respondents bear  the costs  of this Application.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn by the Claimant on 20. 11. 2019.

The 1st Respondent  has opposed the Application vide the Replying Affidavit sworn bySamuel  Ngundo  Maina on 24. 6.2020.

Claimant’s  Contention

Vide  the Instant  Application,  the Claimant contend that  the 1st Respondent  and itself executed  a Sale Agreement  on 27. 9.2016 for  the Claimant  to purchase  all that piece of land  known  as Olive  Gardens  Phase  III measuring  40x80 plot  II. That  the said purchase  comprised  share certificate  No. 9825 dated  13. 9.2016. That subsequently, she paid  Kshs.1,200,000/= on installments as shown  below:

a. Kshs. 500,000 on 23. 9.2016

b. Kshs.100,000 on  27. 9.2010

c. Kshs.100,000 on 25. 10. 2016

d. Kshs. 200,000 on  29. 11. 2010

e. Kshs. 200,000 on  17. 1.2017

f.   Kshs. 100,000 on 27. 2.2017

That  upon receipt  of the said  purchase  price, the  1st Respondent  has  refused  and/or failed  to execute  a transfer  and other completion  documents. That  she has  information  that the Respondents  are planning  to hold an Annual  General Meeting  to plan further  delay  in the issuance  of the transfer  documents.  That  the Respondent’s  actions  will deprive  her ownership of the suit  property.

Respondent’s Case

Vide  the Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by the 1st  Respondent’s chairman  on 24. 6.2020,  the 1st  Respondent  has opposed  the  Application  based  on the following  grounds:

Firstly,  that the  model  employed  in the sale  of the suit property  entailed purchase  of big  chunk  of  land and inviting  members  to book  plots  by  paying  deposits. That after  making  payments  for the plots, the land would  be subdivided  into plots  which  would  eventually  be transferred  to them  upon completion  of payment.

That the Claimant  is yet  to  complete  payment  of the purchase price as well as  conveyancing  fees to enable  it transfer  the suit property  to herself.

That  the Claimant  took possession  of the suit property  and is in continuous occupation  despite having  not paid  the full purchase  price.  That the  suit property cannot  therefore  be transferred  to her until  she  completes  payment of the  full purchase  prices.

That  the said  plots  cannot be  transferred  to the Claimant  until all  plots  are excised  from the bigger  chunk  and fully sold.  That there is  no intention  to deprive  the Claimant  her land  and that  her  apprehension  is ill advised.

Disposal  of the Application

Vide  the directions given  on 27. 7.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way  of written  submissions. The Claimant  filed hers  on 24. 8.2020 while  the Respondent  did so on  15. 9.2020. We will  consider  the  same whilst  determining  the issues  raised  by the Application.

Issues  for determination

The Instant  Application  has presented the following issues for determination:

a. Whether  the Claimant  has laid a proper  basis  to  warrant  the granting  an Order  of temporary  injunction;

b. Who should meet the costs of the Application?

Temporary  injunction

The  court  in the case  of  Giella  - vs-  Cassman  Brown [1973] EA settled  the principles, to be  considered  before  an Order  of a temporary  injunction  can be  made. They  includes:

a. Establishment  of a prima facie  case with  a probability  of success;

b. Establishment  of the risk of a party  suffering  irreparable  loss  if the injunction  is not granted; and

c. A determination  of the Application  on a balance of convenience  if the court  is in doubt.

A question  arises as to whether  the instant  Application  has satisfied  the foregoing  conditions. The Claimant  has  urged  us to grant  a temporary  injunction  principally to restrain  the Respondents  or persons  acting  at their behest  from  entering into, selling, alienating,  transferring  her land  known  as Plot  II comprising JUJA/KOMO BLOCK 1/3452.  The basis  of this prayer  is  that she bought  the said plot  way in 2016 and the  Respondents have  not been  keen  to transfer  it to herself.

On its part, the Respondents  have  faulted  the Claimant for founding  the instant  Application  on the following  grounds:

a. That the  Claimant  has not completed  the purchase  price  for the said plot;

b. That  the said plot (plot II)  is part  of  a bigger  chunk  land which  can only be  excised  and individual titles  processed  once the  plots  are  fully paid up; and

c. That the Claimant  is in possession  of  the said  plot and that there  are no plans  to  dispossess  her of it.

What  we gather  from the averments  of the Claimant in the instant Application  is that  she wants  the Respondent  to be compelled  to  transfer  Plot No. II to her name.  That  the  1st Respondent  has called  or  is about  to convene  an Annual General Meeting whose  Agenda  exclude the issue  of transfer  of the plot  to herself.

While  the Claimant  suggest  in her prayers in the Application  that the said  plot and  the  suit  and  the suit  land  is in danger  of being alienated  and/or  disposed  of by the  Claimant, none  of the grounds  in support of the  Application  supports  this  contention. The  prayers  and the grounds  in support  are thus disjointed.

We have  also perused  the  Reliefs  sought  in the amended  plaint  dated 27. 2.2020. We note  that some  of them are substantially  similar  to the Orders  sought  in the instant Application. In fact prayer  (b) seeks  for  a refund  of  the said purchase  price.  This poses  the question  as to whether  the Claimant  has lost  interest  in the pursuit  of the suit  property.

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  are not satisfied  that the current  Application  has satisfied  the principles set  out above.  The Claimant  has not  established  that there is  imminent  risk  of alienation of  her plot.

Conclusion

On the basis  of the foregoing,  we find that the Claimant’s Application  dated  20. 8.19 and amended  on  6. 12. 2019 is unmerited  and hereby  dismiss  it  with costs  in the case.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 5thday of November, 2020.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      5. 11. 2020

Hon. F. Terer                          Deputy Chairman      Signed      5. 11. 2020

Mr. P. Gichuki                       Member                       Signed      5. 11. 2020

In the presence of:

Miss Gitau holding brief for Mr. Mwangi for the Respondent

Hon. F. Terer            Deputy Chairman      Signed      5. 11. 2020