Omollo v Gloskonza Travellers Saving and Credit Co-operative Society [2023] KECPT 740 (KLR)

Omollo v Gloskonza Travellers Saving and Credit Co-operative Society (Tribunal Case Miscellaneous E002 of 2022) [2023] KECPT 740 (KLR) (31 August 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KECPT 740 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Tribunal Case Miscellaneous E002 of 2022

BM Kimemia, Chair, J. Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members

August 31, 2023

Between

Joseph Otieno Omollo

Claimant

and

Gloskonza Travellers Saving and Credit Co-operative Society

Respondent

Ruling

1. This ruling dispenses with the Claimants Notice of Motion Application dated 30th March 2022 supported by an affidavit sworn by one, Joseph Omollo Otieno, the claimant herein, and brought under Section 1,1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Application seeks the following orders:1. That this Application be certified as urgent and service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order directing the OCS Eldoret Police Station to ensure applicant re-enter and continue with their matatu business at Eldoret mainstage.3. That the costs of this Application which Application be in the cause.

2. The Application is premised on the grounds on its face which are inter alia that: The Applicant is a member of the Respondent. The Respondent filed an Application restraining the Applicant from entering the stage, and obtained temporary orders pending the determination of the Application. The Application was later dismissed after it was heard on merit, but the Respondent continue to deny the Applicant Access to the stage.

3. Both parties put in their submissions. In their submissions, the Claimants sought to address two issues. One is the legal consequences of dismissal of Plaintiff’s (Respondent’s) Application against the Respondent on entry into the main stage and whether this Application is merited. On these questions, the Applicant submits that this Application is merited and that this court should grant the orders sought to prevent the destruction of the Claimant’s motor vehicles by the Respondent.

4. In the Respondent’s submissions, the Respondent submits that the Claimant is not a member of the Respondent’s Sacco. That the Claimant lend some amounts, and the Claimant has not refunded the loans. The Respondent further submits that the suspension against the Claimant has not been lifted. Further that the Claimant is a perennial litigant.

5. The Tribunal has noted the submission of both parties in this matter. The Claimant prays the Tribunal to issue an order to the OCSEldoret Police Station to protect him enter the Eldoret stage. The Respondent submits that the Claimant is not its member, yet still makes reference to loans which are yet to be paid, and suspension orders yet to be lifted. The claim that the Claimant is a perennial litigant does not stand since every matter is to be considered on its own merit. The Respondent does not make any reference to the temporary injunction orders referred to by the Claimant in his Application, which seems to be the genesis of locking the Claimant out of the Eldoret stage. It is his position that the Applicant sold over his rights and slots to the stage with Glorious Luxury Travellers Sacco Limited and also with the Loan that was advanced to the Applicant and which the Applicant is yet to pay. The Applicant, on the other hand, has only based his return to the stage on the dismissal of “a Plaintiff’s” Application, an Application that this court has not seen. This Tribunal feels that the Applicant has not disclosed enough information to enable this court make a decision. The Tribunal feels that the entry to the stage is just superficial issue, and that there are many underlying issues between the Claimant and the Respondent, and which ought to be addressed before any orders as regards to entry are made. The Tribunal feels that orders of entry to the stage would best have been interim orders pending the determination of the deeper issues between the Claimant and the Respondent and that it would not suffice to be final orders when clearly the fire that led to this application is still burning underneath. The order of this court would only act as a mask.

6. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismisses the Claimant’s Application dated 30th March 2022, with costs.File ordered as closed.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023. HON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. PAUL AOL MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023Tribunal Clerk JemimahNo appearance for both parties.HON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 31. 8.2023