Obayi v Juma [2025] KECPT 361 (KLR)

Obayi v Juma (Tribunal Case 575. E403 of 2021) [2025] KECPT 361 (KLR) (26 June 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 361 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Tribunal Case 575. E403 of 2021

Janet Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members

June 26, 2025

Between

Symon Noah Obayi

Claimant

and

George H. Juma

Respondent

Ruling

1. The matter was determined via a default judgment entered in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent on 18. 05. 2022Respondents motor vehicle KBF 247B have been attached and proclaimed by amounts that the parties come for Notice to Show Cause.However, on 13. 10. 2025 the Tribunal ordered for the release of the vehicle and Claimant was to be responsible for payment of the Auction fees. The Claimant did not pay car the car yard and as such motor vehicle had not been releases and the fees was Kshs 300,000/= as at 8. 10. 2025 which parties appeared before the Tribunal.

2. On 24. 10. 2024 this interested party Garage yard owner confirmed have released the motor vehicle but their costs remained unpaidThe Ruling thus is on issue of costs. The Claimant filed their Written Submissions dated 12. 11. 2024. The Respondent and interested party did not file their Written Submissions as at the date of writing the Ruling. The issue at hand is who is responsible for payment of the storage charges. On 13. 2.2024 the Tribunal directions are very clear for the Claimant was ordered to pay the auctioneers fees.To this end the auctioneer fees has been settled as Claimant to pay the same.

3. What remains is the storage charges. The Claimant repossessed the Claimant’s motor vehicle illegally while providing the NTSC they did not request for Warrant of attachment.Claimant took action on 2 ways of executiona.NTSC why execution should not issued on 17. 07. 2023b.Warrant of attachment of moveable property in execution of decree for main Defence dated 16. 11. 2024 Claimant produced both which is not proper.

4. The onus on Claimant to show why they should not bear the costs as he attached Respondent’s motor vehicle and whatever reason did not sell it and cause for NTSC against Respondent; Claimant cannot have his car and cost it.When Claimant filed for NTSC he ought to have done the prudent then and released the Respondent’s motor vehicle whereas he continued determining it while following the Respondent.The loss suffered was indeed caused by the Claimant himself.He brought the quary move upon himself.As such we find Respondent is not to blame as motor vehicle would have been sold and decretal sum paid as well as storage charges which had accrued.

UpshotWe find Claimant brought the misfortune upon himself and is hereby ordered to pay the storage fees of Ksh 300,000. 00/=File ordered as closed.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. PAUL AOL MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025Tribunal Clerk A.GechikoNo appearance by parties.Ruling delivered in the absence of parties.HON. J. MWATSAMA – DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 26/06/2025