Methodist Savings & Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Pangani Auction Centre & Bernard Ndung’u Kibera [2021] KECPT 515 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.302 OF 2019

METHODIST  SAVINGS &

CREDIT  CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETY  LIMITED...........................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

PANGANI AUCTION  CENTRE...............................................1ST   RESPONDENT

BERNARD  NDUNG’U KIBERA................................................2ND RESPONDENT

ARISING  FROM

METHODIST  SAVING &

CREDIT  CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETY LIMITED................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

BERNARD  NDUNG’U KIBERA..........................................................DEFENDANT

RULING

1. The  Application  Notice of  Motion  dated  29. 1.2021 and filed  on  2. 2.2021 seeking  for orders:

a. Spent

b. That pending  the hearing  and determination  of this application,  a temporary  order of injunction  do issue  restraining  the 1st  Respondent  whether  by themselves  or their representatives, servants, agents, and/or  assigns  from howsoever transferring, selling,  disposing  of,  offering  for a sale by public  auction or private  treaty  or alienating  in any manner  whatsoever the motor  vehicle  Registration  Number  KBP 026T ( the suit  vehicle);

c. That pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit, an order of prohibitory injunction do issue  restraining  the 1st  Respondent  whether  by themselves  or their  representatives, servants, agents, and/or  assigns  from howsoever transferring, selling,  disposing  of,  offering  for a sale by public  auction or private  treaty  or alienating  in any manner  whatsoever the motor  vehicle  Registration  Number  KBP 026T ( the suit  vehicle);

d. That  the costs  of this Application  be awarded  to the Applicant.

2. The Application  was opposed  by the  1st Respondent  Pangani Auction Centre as it  were via a Replying Affidavit dated  15. 2.2021 and filed  on 16. 2.21.

There in,  they stated  the  1st  Respondent  is not party  to  the suit case No. 302 of  2019. Since  no cause of action  has been brought  against it.

3. The Respondent  further raised  a Preliminary Objection  in the paragraphs  12 and 13  of the Replying affidavit dated  and stated  the following:

a. That  I am advised  by our  Advocates  on record  which advise I verily believe  to be true  that this Tribunal’s jurisdiction  is only limited  to issues  relating  to the constitution,  registration and regulation  of Co-operative  Societies  and we are  not parties  to the dispute  as between  the Plaintiff  and Defendant so as  to be subject  to the Tribunal’s  jurisdiction  and  the Tribunal  has no jurisdiction  to addresses matters  arising  from Disposal  of Uncollected  Goods Act;

b. That we hereby  give notice  that we  shall be  raising  a Preliminary  Objection  on the  Application  before  the court  as well  as  this  court’s competence  to hear  it.

4. The Ruling  herein is restricted  to the Preliminary Objection raised  therein. Parties  were directed  to file submissions  on the  issue  of the Preliminary  Objection  and 1st Respondent  filed  their submissions  dated  24. 2.2021 on  8th March  2021.

And Claimant filed their submissions dated 24. 2.2021 on  26. 2.2021.

5. The issues  that arise  are as follows:

a. Whether Pangani Auction Centre  is a party  to  this dispute;

b. Whether Pangani Auction Centre were  correctly  enjoined  to the suit;

c. Whether the Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to determine  the case against  Pangani Auction  Centre.

6. Issue 1:

Whether Pangani Auction Centre  is a party  to dispute;

The position  is the parties  to Tribunal  case No. 302 of 2019 are Methodist  Savings and Credit  Co-operative  Society – vs- Bernard  Ndung’u Kibera.

We  note that  there has  been no Application  for any other  party  to be enjoined  in the suit  at whichever  stage  before  the  Application  dated 29. 1.2021 was made.  We  are then  tasked to ask  ourselves  how a party  is  enjoined  in an existing  suit.

7. How  do parties get enjoined  in  suit?

Further, we take note judgment  had already  been entered  in  the  suit  herein, no party can be  introduced  in the suit  after  judgment.

Order  1 Rule  10 civil  procedure  Rules 28

(4) Blacks  Laws  Dictionary , 9th  edition  defines  “ intervener” at page  897as:

“ one  who voluntarily  enters  a pending  law  suit because  of a personal  stake  in it”

An amicus  on the other hand  is  defined in Black’s  Law  Dictionaryas

“ A person  who is not a  party  to a law suit  but who  petitions  the court  or is requested  by the court  to file a brief  in  the action because  that person has a strong,  interest  in the subject matter.”

An Interested  Party  usually  makes  an Application  before  court to be enjoined in a suit.

Further  the other  parties  can request  for leave  of court. To add  a party  to the suit  and only  then can  a party  be  enjoined in a suit.

8. Issue 2:

Whether Pangani Auction  Centre  were  correctly  enjoined  to the suit;

No leave was sought from the Tribunal for Pangani  Auction  Centre to be enjoined in the suit.

A mere  mention  of a “party” though  connected  to the  parties  of in the suit does not  warrant  adding  and/or enjoining  any party to a suit.

The correct procedure in adding a party to a suit has to be followed  and none  was followed  in this  instance.

9. Issue  3:

Whether  the Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to determine  the case against  Pangani Auction  Centre.

The Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to  address  any  matter which  touches on  Co-operative  Societies  as envisaged  in  Section  76  Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490).

The motor vehicle  in question  KBP 026T has been part of  the  subject  matter of this case from  the time  the suit  was filed and  thus orders  against  it can be made.

However,  since the  motor vehicle  is now under  the custody  of  Pangani  Auction  Centre, the  question would   then be  can the Tribunal  issue orders  against Pangani Auction Centre?

The answer to the above is in the affirmative. Not as a party to the suit but persons of interest with ”subject Matter” of an Application  or suit.

The Tribunal  does have  jurisdiction  of all matters  which touch  on Co-operatives party  that is  subject matter  to it  thus it can  deal with  matters  of  disposal  of uncollected  Goods if the subject  matter of  claim  falls under it.

Thus, the Preliminary  Objection  succeeds to the extent.

1. Pangani Auction Centre  are not party  to the suit  and orders  cannot  be issued  against  it as a  party introduced  after entry  of judgment and  leave  not sought to them  to be enjoined.

2. The motor vehicle KBP 026T   being subject matter of the case herein is preserved pending hearing and determination  of the case.  Pangani Auction  Centre  is ordered  against  selling  it.

3. Parties to comply  with Order  II Civil Procedure Rule within  30 days.

4. Mention  on ..............

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 13th day of May, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                Chairperson                Signed      6. 5.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama              Deputy Chairperson  Signed      6. 5.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki                      Member                       Signed      6. 5.2021

Tribunal Clerk                      Leweri