Nyamira Tea Farmers Sacco Limited v Aska Kemento Ongondu [2021] KECPT 619 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT KISUMU

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.423 OF 2019

NYAMIRA  TEA FARMERS  SACCO  LIMITED........................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

ASKA  KEMENTO  ONGONDU.................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

What  is before  us  for consideration  and determination  is the Respondent’s  Notice  of Preliminary  Objection  dated  13. 9.2019. The said  objection  seeks  for the entire  claims to be dismissed  because of  the following  grounds:

a. That  the Tribunal  lacks  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the claim;

b. That the claim  is statute  barred; and

c. That  the claim  is for beyond  allowed   in law  pursuant  to the banking  Act.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  13. 2.2020,  the Preliminary Objection  was to be  canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  Whilst the Respondent  filed  his  written submissions  on 13. 3.2020the Claimant  did not file  its submissions despite  service.

RESPONDENT’S CASE

Vide the  said  written submissions,  the Respondent  has faulted  the competency  of the claim  on account  of the  fact that  he was  an employee  of the  Claimant and not  its member within  the meaning  of Section  76  of the Co-operative  societies  Act,  (Cap 490) Laws of  Kenya.  That she was  initially  employed  as a typist/Secretary    on  2. 8.2020. That  her services  were terminated  on  3. 12. 2009. That  the alleged loan  was advanced  to her as  a staff member  and that the Tribunal  lacks  jurisdiction  to entertain  the same.

On the issue  of  limitation  of actions,  the Respondent  contend  that the statute  is  time barred  as the same  was lodged  9 years after the cause  of action arose.  He has founded  this claim  from  the Loan  Application  Form which  he  contends  is  dated 15. 10. 2020.

ISSUES  FOR DETERMINATION

The Respondent’s  Preliminary  Objection  has presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Tribunal  does not  have jurisdiction  to  entertain  the claim  in view of  the  Claimants’  membership with  the Respondent;

b. Whether  the claim  is  statute barred.

JURISDICTION  IN LIGHT  OF MEMBERSHIP

As rightfully submitted  by the  Respondent, Section  76 of the Co-operative  Societies Act  confers  jurisdiction  to  this Tribunal to deal  and/or  handle  disputes  inter alia between  a Co-operative  Societies  and its members. The  Respondent  however,  contend  that she was  advanced  a loan  in  her capacity as  an employee  and not  as a member  of the Claimant.  This argument  raises  two issues; firstly whether  the contention  is a pure point  of law  within  so as to be  brought  within a ambit  of  a Preliminary  objection  and secondly,  whether  he was  advanced  loan as  a member  of the Claimant or as an employee.

As regards the first issue whether  the issue  of membership is a pure point  of law,  we are of  the view that  the same is  not a pure  point  of  law so as  to fall within  the rubric  of  a Preliminary Objection. As was  held  by the court in the case of  Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing  Company  Limited – vs-  West End  Distributors Limited  [1960]EA 69,

“.. A Preliminary  Objection  consist  of a point  of law which  has been pleaded  or which arise by  clear  implication  of the pleadings and  which  if argued  as a Preliminary  point, will dispute  of the suit.”

At page  90,  the court  went further  to hold  thus:

“ A Preliminary  Objection  is in the nature  of  what  used to be a  ...... It  raises  a pure  point of  law  which is  argued  on the consumption  that all  the facts pleaded  by the  other  side are correct.  It cannot  be  raised  if any fact  has to be  ascertained  or if what  is  sought  is the exercise  of judicial discretion.”

By raising the issue  of membership, the Respondent  is pleading a factual point which requires verification or  authentication  by way  adduction  of evidence. It is not  a  pure point  of law which  can be  argued  and disposed  of in a summary  manner.

With  this finding  in the fore,  we find  that there  is  no need to  consider  and determine  the  issue  of whether  or not  he was  a member  of the Claimant.

LIMITATION  OF TIME.

The Respondent has raised another pertinent  issue of  limitation  of time. According to him,  this claim  is  statute  barred  as  the cause  of  action  arose  in  the year,  2009. That by dint  of Section  4 (1) of  the Limitation  of  Action  Act,  the cause of  action ought  to have been  founded  within  a period  of 6 years. That the claim herein  has been  brought  after  the lapse  of a  period  of  10 years.

We have  perused  the Statement  of Claim  dated  23. 7.2019. Nowhere  in  it do we find  an averment  to the effect  that  the cause of  action arose  in  the year,  2009 as alleged  by the  Respondent.  In any  event,  the Respondent  has only  referred  to a loan Application  form.

As  is apparent,  a loan  Application  form cannot  be axed  to reckoned  a  cause  of action  in a matter  of this nature.  To the contrary,  the date of  default  is in doing so.  As  such,  we find  the Respondent’s  contention  on  limitation  of  time unfounded  and  hereby  dismiss it.

CONCLUSION

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  do not find merit  in the Respondent’s  Notice  of Preliminary  Objection  dated 13. 9.2019 and hereby  dismiss  it with costs.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 6TH 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

Onyancha  for Claimant:  No  appearance

Parties  to comply  by filing  and serving  Witness Statement  and documents  within  30 days  herein.

Mention  7. 6.2021. Notice  to issue.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      6. 5.2021