Moses Mwanzia & 4 others v Royal Housing Co-operative & 2 others [2021] KECPT 545 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.737 OF 2015

MOSES MWANZIA &4 OTHERS..........................................................CLAIMANTS

VERSUS

ROYAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE & 2 OTHERS.....................RESPONDENTS

RULING

The matter for determination is the Notice of Motion Application dated 7. 12. 2020 filed on 8. 12. 2020, seeking the following orders:

a.Spent

b.Spent

c.That  there be a stay  of execution  of the judgment  and decree  of this Honorable  court  delivered  on 3rd  September  2020 pending  the hearing  and  determination  of the intended  appeal.

d.That  the time  for filing  an appeal  against  the judgment  herein  be extended  by a further  thirty (30) days.

e.Costs of this Application be provided.

The same is based on the grounds of the application and the supporting affidavit of Samuel Muigai deponed on 7. 12. 2020.

The Application is opposed vide the Replying Affidavit of Moses Mwanzia deponed on 6. 1.2021 filed on 6. 1.2021.

The Application   was ordered to be dispensed by way of written submissions. The applicant filed their written submissions on 29. 1.2021 and the Respondent filed written submissions on 27. 1.2021.

The Applicant submitted that they were seeking stay of execution pending the hearing of an intended appeal.  That they were not aware of the delivery of the judgment since no notice was issued.  That there was  no inordinate  delay  in seeking extension, there  was procedural  defects  in  mode  of execution  and there  would  be substantial  loss.  The both  parties  have filed  extensive  submissions which we  have considered  and there  are the following  issues  for  determination.

1. Whether the Tribunal is the proper avenue for the Application.

2. Whether the reliefs sought should be granted.

3. Who should bear the costs?

1. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL IS THE PROPER AVENUE FOR THE APPLICATION.

The Applicant seeks leave to file an appeal out of time. That  they got  to know  about  the judgment  on 3. 9.2020 when they  were served  with  the  decree.  That no notice was issued for the delivery of the judgment. They  relied  on Andrew  Kiplagat Chemaringo  -vs-  Paul  Kipkorir Kibet  [2018] eKLR where  the principles  were  laid out  as:

- Length  of delay

- Reason  of delay

- Chances  of success  of appeal

- Degree of prejudice.

The Applicant submitted that there was no inordinate delay in seeking extension of time.  That  the delay  was significantly  caused  by suspension  of operations  of the Tribunal  due  to  lack  of  funds.  That the appeal stands high chances of success and no prejudice will be caused if the prayers are granted.

That the Claimant filed a Notice to Act in person extracted the decree and sought execution. That such  notice  ought  to be  effected  with leave  of  court hence offends  Order  9  Rule 9.  That the decree is therefore void  ab initio.

That  the applicant  intends  to file an appeal  in the High court  and attachment  of the  Respondent’s  assets  would  be prejudiced.

In the  Response,  the Claimant  submitted  that the application  is misconceived  since  the next  logical  step  was to file  an appeal as  provided  under Section  81  Co-operative Societies  Act.  That  the Tribunal  is functus  officio as outlined  in  Geoffrey  M. Asanyo  & 3 others  -vs-  Attorney  General [2020]eKLR.

That the application is procedurally improper and an abuse of the process of the court.  That  the Claimant  had the right  to  represent  himself  and therefore  was entitled  to  make  that choice.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and not the following history of the matter.

- The initial  judgment  was entered  on  8. 1.2019 and the  Respondent  was ordered  to file  within  21 days, the Statement  of accounts.

- On 30. 4.2019, when the matter came up for mention, the Respondents had not complied.

- On 4. 6.2019, 4. 7.2019 the Respondent had still not complied.

- On 7. 8.2019, the Respondents filed the statement of accounts.

- On 17. 8.2020,  the Respondents  and Claimants  appeared  and a date  of 3. 9.2020  for final  orders  were issued via  email to the  parties  in compliance  of the directives  during  the COVID-19  Pandemic. The said order is dated 3. 9.2020.

In the  circumstance therefore,  we note that  Claimant  was  present  and  aware  of the judgment  date, and  he  Claimant  was  to issue  of notice  to Respondent.

We note that  the Tribunal  had issued  proper notices  to all litigants  on its  operations  during   the COVID- 19  pandemic  and that the  parties  were sent  the final  orders  via email.

We note that the Respondent  however was  aware  of the matter when  they filed  the statement  of account  on 7. 8.2019 and thereafter  4 mentions  notice  was served  for  6. 9.2019. There had been various interruptions in the Tribunal as a result of lack of funds.  However, there were several orders issued for notices to issue to the Respondent in the matter. Its trite law and procedure that the parties must follow up on their matters as a matter of diligence.  Owing to the COVID–19 pandemic, the parties were required to have continued check-ups online for their matters.  That being said, then there would be a mute point to follow up on the issue of notices. This is  because  the Respondent  in the first  instance  did not comply  with the orders  to file within  21 days and were  therefore  thereafter  acting  in contempt  of the  said orders.  The Respondent by purporting non-compliance of notice service/issuance  should  first purge  the non-compliance  to the  orders  of the Tribunal,  to  file the statement  of account  within  21 days. Its  trite  law that  parties  must  come with  clean hands before  imputing  non –compliance  by other  parties. We note  that the  Respondents had  been issued  with several  notices  for compliance  and dispute  service, were  not  appearing  before the  Tribunal on various  occasions. We are aware that all orders delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic were transmitted to the parties via email. There is no allegation or submission by the Respondent to the contrary.

On the issue  of the Claimants representing  themselves  after the  delivery  of the judgment,  we have noted  Order 9 Rule  9 Civil Procedure Rule  and we as the Tribunal  under  Rule  4  Co-operative  Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules deem  this to be  a technicality  since  the Claimants opted  to represent  themselves  and thereafter  sought  leave  to  be represented  by an  advocate  after judgment. The defect was therefore cured.  We are  not bent  to  locking  out parties  in a claim  or not granting  them an opportunity  to be heard  as a result  of any technicalities  which  can be easily  cured.

On the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, we note the provisions of Section 81 Co-operative Societies Act as provided:-

“Any party  to the proceedings  before  the Tribunal  who is aggrieved  by  any order  of  the Tribunal, may within  30 days  of such order,  appeal  against  such  order to  the  High Court,  provided  that the High Court  may, where  it is satisfied  that there is  sufficient  reason  for  so doing,  extend  the said period  of  30 days...”

This Section 81 Co-operative Societies Act is very clear that any extension of time for appeal should be by the High Court.  In the  instant matter,  we note that the Respondent  therefore should  have filed  their  application  on extension  of  period  for appeal  in the High Court.  This is enumerated  in Geoffrey  M. Asanyo  &  3 others  - vs-  Attorney  General  [2020] eKLRwhere  the Supreme Court  held:

“ The  [Principle] of (functus officio) is that once  such  a decision  has been  taken,  it is (subject  to any  right  of appeal  to a superior  body or  functionary) final  and conclusive.”

The procedure  under Section  81  Co-operative Societies  Act is  that  a party  aggrieved  by the decision  of the Tribunal  has a right  of appeal  to the High Court  and  it is  the same  High court  that  is vested  with the jurisdiction  to extend  time  to file such  an appeal. We therefore find that the Application for the extension of time should have been made before the High Court.  On the same breath then,  the stay of  execution  pending  the intended  appeal  is also  pegged  on the extension  of time  and  such orders  are  within  the jurisdiction  of the High Court  under Section  81 Co-operation  Societies  Act.

In this  regard,  having  found  inter-alia that   the jurisdiction  in the  circumstances  of the application  should  have been  made before  the High Court,  then the  other issues  of delay,  reason for delay  and prejudice  will  not be discussed  in this  Ruling.

(ii) WHETHER THE RELIEFS SHOULD BE GRANTED.

As discussed earlier in issue (i) above, the reliefs sought by the Respondent/ Applicant cannot be granted. The proper forum for the reliefs sought is the High Court.

(iii)  WHO SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS?

Costs follow the event.  The Application having failed to have merit, the costs therefore should be paid to the successful party.

FINAL ORDERS

1. The Application dated 7. 12. 2020 filed on 8. 12. 2020 has no merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs.

RULING READ, SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA   CHAIRPERSON                         ....................................

HON. M. MWATSAMA  DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON  ....................................

MR. P. GICHUKI    MEMBER                                      ....................................