Mohamed Sheikhdini & 7 others v Vipingo Sacco Society Limited [2020] KECPT 105 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT MOMBASA

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 338 OF 2017

MOHAMED  SHEIKHDINI  & 7  OTHERS..................................CLAIMANTS

VERSUS

VIPINGO  SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED....................................RESPONDENT

RULING

What is  before  us for consideration  and determination  is the Respondent’s  Application  dated  28. 8.2019.  It  seeks  for the  following  orders.

1. The  application  be certified  as urgent,  service  thereof  be dispensed  with and  the  same be heard  ex-parte in the first instance.

2. Pending  hearing  and determination  of this application,  the Honourable Tribunal be pleased  to stay  the  execution  of its entire  Judgment  entered  on  26. 7.2019 and  the decree extracted  on  2. 8.2019 ordering  the Respondent  to pay  the  claimants  the  decretal  sum  of Kshs.553,125/-  plus  costs  of Kshs. 13,840/=.

3. The Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to review  its judgment  entered  on  26. 7.2019.

4. This  Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to permit  the Respondent  pay  the  decretal  amount  by monthly  installment  of Kshs.46,093. 75/= till  payment  in  full.

5. The Respondent continues paying the sum of Kshs.46,093. 75/= per month with effect from 10th September  2019 and on the 10th  day of each such month till payment in full.

6. Costs of the application.

The Application  is supported  by the grounds  on its  face  and  the Supporting Affidavits  sworn  by Weston  Banda  on the very date that is  28. 8.2019.

The gist of  the Respondent’s  Case  is that  it wants  the Judgment  to be  reviewed  as follows:

(a) That  there be  a proper  stipulation  of timelines for satisfaction of  the decretal amount  as it is  incapable  for  it to satisfy  it at once;

(b) That there  be stipulated  timeline,  for distribution  of accrued  dividend,  taking  into  account  the operations  of the posho mill and  its  future  sustainability;

(c) Directions  as to whom  it should pay  the accrued  dividends, that is  whether  it should  be  the  8th  claimant  only  or each  shareholder  of  Vipingo  Posho Mill.

(d) Orders  and guidelines  as to the  formation  and  operations  of interim  committee  and the management  committee  to facilitate  efficient  operations  of the posho mill.

The Claimant  has opposed  the Application  by filing  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by  himself  on  4. 10. 2019. Vide this Response,  the  claimant  contend  that the  instant  Application is an abuse of the  court process. That  while  on  the face of  the  application,  the Respondent  wants  to  be allowed  to satisfy  the judgment    on installments, vide  it’s supporting Affidavit,  it’s disputing  the judgment. That he is not opposed  to the judgment  being  satisfied  by way  of  installment.

The Claimant  reiterated  the above  contentions  vide  his written  submissions  filed on  13. 1.2020. He specifically  submits  that  he  is  agreeable  for the decretal  amount  to be satisfied  by way  of monthly  installments. He states as follows at paragraph  3 of  the  submissions;

“The main  prayer  is that  the applicant  be allowed  to pay  by  installments. We have not objected  to that prayer, it should  be recorded  as allowed by consent”

Further,  he contends  that the decretal amount  should be  paid  to the Tribunal pending  the sharing  of dividends to shareholders.

Issues of determination

We have  framed  the following  issues  for determination:

(a) Whether  the Respondent  have laid  a proper  basis  for  review  of the  judgment  delivered  on  26. 7.2019.

(b) What orders  are available  in the circumstances.

Review  of orders  and/or  judgment

We have  jurisdiction  to review  judgment  and/or orders  by dint of  section  80  of  the Civil Procedure  Act  (Cap  21) of  the  Laws of Kenya, and  Order  45  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. In terms  of these legal  provisions, judgment  can  only  be reviewed  on the following  grounds:

(a) Discovery  of new  and important  matter;

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

(c) Sufficient reason.

The question that arises is whether the Respondent  has satisfied  these  principles. Our answer  is a resounding  NO! The Respondent’s Application is merely  seeking leave to be allowed to settle the decretal amount by way of monthly installments of Kshs.46,093. 75. The  claimant is not  opposed  to the said proposal.  The upshot  of  this  therefore  is that our  hands are  tied  and that  the furthest  we can  do  is to  allow  it  on terms  that the Respondent  allowed  to settle  the decretal amount by way  of  monthly installments of Kshs.46,093. 75 until  payment  in full. The said  installments  to be paid  on or before  the  5th  of every month  beginning  5. 3.2020.

As regards to the other aspects of the application example distribution  of dividends, ownership of  Vipingo  Posho Mill, and  Management  of the Respondent,  we refer the Respondent to the Judgment delivered on 26. 7.2019.

Since the Respondent has unnecessarily filed the instant application, we condemn it to meet its costs.

Read and delivered in an open court this 26th day of February  2020

In the presence of ;-

Claimant                   :         Sandra Kavanji holding  brief  for Kalumbo For claimant.

Respondent              :          Mohammed  present

Court Assistant        :         Charles Maina

Hon. B. Kimemia    -          Chairman                          Signed

Hon. F. Terer           -          Deputy Chairman             Signed

P. Swanya                -          Member                              Signed