Mohamed Abdi Ali v Garissa Madogo Sacco (Gamama) & another [2019] KECPT 40 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 236 OF 2019

MOHAMED ABDI ALI……………………………………….……....…………CLAIMANT

VERSUS

GARISSA MADOGO SACCO (GAMAMA)…………….……...……..1ST RESPONDENT

ALI AHMED DAHIR…………………………………………….……..2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter  for determination  is  a Notice of Motion  application  dated  3. 5.19 seeking  the following  orders:-

1. Thatthis honorable  tribunal  be pleased  to certify  the application  as urgent  and  service  of the same  upon  the  defendants/respondents be dispensed  with in  the first  instance.

2. Thatpending  the hearing  and determination  of this application, the Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to order the Defendant/Respondent to reinstate the  suspended  Vehicle Registration  Number  KCF 389G andKAU 271B back  to the route.

3. Thatpending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit, the Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to order the Defendant/Respondent to reinstate the  suspended  Vehicle Registration  Number  KCF 389G andKAU 271B back  to the route.

4. That this Honorable  tribunal be pleased to issue an order  against  the respondent/defendants to  compensate  the applicant/plaintiff the loss  he has  incurred  during  the suspension.

5. That the Honorable Tribunal  be pleased  to issue orders  that it may  deem fit  for purposes of justice.

6. Thatcosts  of this application be in the cause.

Based  on the ground on  the face of the application  supported  by an affidavit  of MOHAMED ABDI  ALI the claimant  herein.

The same application  was also  refilled  on 7. 8.2019 and dated  31. 7.19.

The same  is opposed by a replying  affidavit  of ALI  AHMED  DAHIR, the  2nd respondent  and chair to the  first  respondent  filed  on 18. 8.19 and further replying  affidavit filed on  1. 10. 19.

Interim  orders  were granted  in terms of prayer 2 of the application  on 2. 8.19.

The application  was  ordered  to be  canvassed by  way of  written  submissions.

Both  application  were ordered  to be  dispensed  together by  way of  written submissions on 23. 8.19.

The applicant  filed their written submissions on 30. 9.19 in regard  to their  application  dated 31. 7.19. the applicant  submitted  that  he is the  bona fide  owner  of  motor vehicle  KCF 389G and KAU 271B and  that he is  a member of the  1st  respondent.  The 1st  respondent  failed  to pay TLB and PSV and inspection  expenses.

That on  17. 1.19 the respondent called the claimant  and also  wrote  a letter  informing  the claimant  of suspension  of his  motor vehicles.

That  on 30. 1.19, the respondent  failed  to  reinstate  the motor  vehicles.

That  the respondent  infringed  the rights  the claimant/applicant  without  issuing  notice.

That  the claimant  stands  to suffer  irreparable  damage  that cannot  be  compensated  by way  of  damages and that  the balances of convenience  tilts in favour  of the claimant  and they  pray  that the  application  to be  allowed.

The 1st and  2nd respondents  filed  their  joint  submissions on 4. 10. 19 and submitted  that the  motor  vehicle  KAU  271B is owned  by CHARLES KIAMA and  not  the claimant .

That  the applicant  has brought  his claim  based on  a sale agreement  made in the year  2013  and  six years  later  the applicant  has no log book  of the  same.

That the  applicant  is not  the owner  of the  2 motor  vehicles  as alleged in the application  and  in the supporting  affidavit  hence  he lacks  locus standi.

That  the applicant  dumped  his  entire  shareholding  which  was paid  to him  in full hence  he is not  a member  and he lacks  locus standi.

That the  respondent  was engaged  in  gross  misconduct  that prejudiced  the entire  sacco  having been  arrested  in 2. 1.2019 charged  and convicted  after  a plea  of  guilty  for violation  of route  service license and  the driver  was ABDULLAHI  IDLE KEDIE of the  motor vehicle  KCA  389G.

That  the said driver  travelled  beyond  the sacco designated  route  and such violation  attracts  sanctions  against  the entire  sacco.

That due  to this,  the 1st respondent  was at  liberty  to terminate  the applicant’s membership.

That  there have been  numerous  complaints  against  the applicant  conduct  as per  the affidavit  of other  members  since  he fights, insults  and  disrupts  the set  stage  orders.

That  according  to the by-laws membership  can be terminated  for gross  misconduct.

That  the applicant  is given  a fair  trial  and dismissed  fairly.

That  the applicant’s  motor vehicles have  no inspection  stickers  and his share  contributions were already refunded  and the orders  in force  are a danger  to the public  who are  ferried  by the said  motor  vehicles.

We  have carefully  considered  the evidence  on record, submissions by the parties  and  the  annexures therein. We  have also  noted  the prayers sought  for in  the  main suit  dated 3. 5. 19. We note  that the  intention to sue/demand to sue  was only  issued  for motor vehicle  KCF 389G as per  the letter  dated 30. 1.19.

We have  also noted  that  the applicant  has  only  attached  ownership documents  for motor vehicle  KAU 271B.  There is  no proof  of ownership for motor vehicle  KCF 389G.

We have also  noted  the  minutes  of the Annual General  Meeting  held on 10. 1.19 that  the applicant  was suspended  with a majority  vote  for motor vehicle  KCF389G vide  minutes of  6. 10. 19.

We  also  note that  after  the order  from  the magistrate  court  dated  26. 2.19, the applicant  was  required  to submit  various  documents  for purposes  of  application  for NTSA.

We also  note that  the sacco only  suspended  motor vehicle  registration  number  KCF  389G and not  KAU 271B  as alleged.  We also note that the  alleged  payment  cheques  have not  been  provided  by the  respondent.

There are very  many  anomalies  in the  matter especially  the  fact  that the  applicant  has sought  orders  in respect  of motor vehicle  KCF 389G yet  he has not  provided  sufficient  proof  that the said  motor vehicle  belongs to him.

That the  purported  suspension  of KAU 271B is not  supported  by any evidence  on record.

Essentially  the prayers  sought  in the  plaint dated  3. 5.19 and the  other plaint   dated  31,7,19 are for only  motor vehicle  registration  number KCF  389G and  the  other  motor vehicle  KAU 271B included  in the notice of  motion  dated  3. 5.19 and  application  dated  31. 7.19 is not  in the  main claim.

We note  with  concern  that there  are  two plaints  in the matter  and two  similar  application  whose  contents  are not  supported  whatsoever  by the plaints. We also  wonder  which  of the plaints is properly  on record  and which  application  the applicant  relies  on.  However,  based  on both  application  we find that,  the  applicant  has not  approached  the seat  of justice  with  clean  hands and  the document, on record  or  neither  here nor there.

We  therefore find  that both  applications dated  3. 5.19 and 31. 7.19 have  no merits  in the first  instance and  have not  been proved  to the  required  threshold. We therefore  dismiss  both applications  in their entirely as an abuse  of court  process  with costs.

Read and delivered in open court, this 7th of November 2019.

In the presence of:

Claimant:Non-appearance.

Respondent:Non-appearance.

Court Assistant:Leweri and Buluma.

B.Kimemia  - Chairman-signed.

R.Mwambura  – Member-signed.

P.Swanya  - Member-signed.