Paladin Properties Limited v Stima Investment Co-operative Society Limited [2021] KECPT 621 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.310 OF 2020

PALADIN  PROPERTIES  LIMITED..........................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

STIMA  INVESTMENT  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY  LIMITED.....RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Application  before the Honorable  Tribunal  is one  dated  11. 12. 2020  and  filed on  15. 12. 2020.

The same  requests  for orders:

1. That this  Application  be certified  urgent  and heard  ex-parte  in the first  instance;

2. That pending  the hearing and  determination  of this application, this  Honorable  court  be pleased  to set aside  in toto the said  summary  judgment  dated  3rd December  2020;

3. That there  be a stay  of execution  of the judgment  issued  on 3rd  December  2020 pending  the hearing and determination  of this  application;

4. That this Honorable  court be  pleased  to allow  the Response  to the  statement of  claim  filed herein  as duly filed  and served; and

5. That the costs  of this application  be provided for.

Based on the grounds that  the Respondent/Applicant instructed  their  Advocate to enter  appearance  on 8. 10. 2020. however,  before they could  do so  their office  was hit  by the  Covid-19  Pandemic  forcing  the advocates to close  their  office  and for  staff members  to isolate and  advocates could not proceed with the  suit as instructed.

2.  The said  Application is supported by the Affidavit  of Dickson Munenethe Advocate  on record  for the Applicant herein.

He  states that  as they prepared  to file  a Defence  they were  informed  of Summary Judgment  that had  already  been  entered  on  5. 12. 2020.

He further avers  the  mistakes of an  advocate  should  not   be visited  upon the  innocent  party herein being  the Respondent  and further  the Respondents  have  an  arguable  Defence which  ought  to be  considered.

3.  The Claimant  opposed  the Application  vide  a Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by Racheal  Wanjiku  Ngindu  drawn and filed  on  21. 1.2021.

The averments of the Replying Affidavit are that the Application  ought  to be dismissed with  costs.  They claim  the Respondent  advocate  served  them with  a Memo  of Appearance  on 8. 10. 2020 via  email and that the Respondent  had a whole  week  to  file a  statement  of Defence  before they  were  “allegedly” hit by Covid -19.

They  further  aver the  Liza  Karivu who is  said to  have been  affected  by Covid -  19  is a stranger and not  known  whether  she works  for the Respondent  firm.

4.  Parties  were ordered to canvass  the Application  by way of  written submissions.

The Applicant/Respondent filed their submissions dated  3. 2.2021 on even dates.

The Claimant filed their submissions dated 17. 2.2021 on  18. 2.2021.

We  have  considered  both parties  written submissions  and  affidavits.

5.  The case herein  is for  setting aside  summary judgment.  The Respondent  learnt  of judgment  while attempting  to file  this statement  of Defence.

Issues

1.  Whether  service  was proper/whether  default  judgment  was  properly  entered.

2.  If defence  raises  triable  issues.

3.  Costs.

ISSUE  ONE

Whether  service  was proper/whether  default  judgment  was  properly  entered.

While  considering  whether  to  set aside  interlocutory  judgment  the court  looks  at the  3 issues  set  out  above.

Service  in this instance is not disputed even  by the  Respondent  who entered  Appearance for  the  Respondent  but  failed  to file  a statement  of Defence in good time  owing  to  one of their  staff members  getting infected  with  Covid- 19 and thus  closing  office.

Therefore the issue  of service  is not  disputed .

6.  ISSUE  TWO

Whether  the Defence  raises triable  issues

For any Application  to set aside  interlocutory  judgment  to  succeed  it is imperative  that a draft  Statement  of Defence  is filed.

The Applicant’s  attached  a draft  Defence  in their Application  and all  the court  has to  look  at is whether  there are  triable  issues  raised  in the Defence  and is  not  mere denials.

In the  case of Patel  -vs EA  Cargo Handling  Services  Limited  [1974] EAthe court  held that:

“That  where  there is  a regular  judgment  as is  the case  here,  the court  will  not usually  set aside  the judgment  unless  it is satisfied  that there is  a Defence  on the merits.”

In  this respect,  Defence on  the merits  does not  mean  a Defence  that must  succeed,  it means  a “triable issue” that is  an  issue  which raises  a prima facie  Defence  which  should go to trial.

With  this in mind  the Statement of  Defence  as filed  has raised  triable  issues  since it  also  stated  that they  would  raise  a Preliminary  Objection.

We also  note that  the matter is not  clear  cut  and parties  should  be given  their  day  before  the Tribunal  to  aerate  their issues.

Having  considered  all the  submissions  and Affidavits  herein  we are  of the opinion  the Respondent does  deserve  or have  a right  to be heard  and  defend  their  claim.

To this  end  we allow  the Application  dated 11. 12. 2020 and set  aside  Summary  Judgment  entered  on 3. 12. 2020.

Costs  in the cause

Respondent  to file  and serve their  Statement  of Defence witness  statements  and documents  within  14 days hereof..

Mention  on 28. 7.2021 for Pre- trial  directions.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      27. 5.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama              Deputy Chairperson    Signed      27. 5.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki                       Member                       Signed      27. 5.2021

Tribunal Clerk                       Leweri

Miss Mugo  for Claimant : Present

Miss Makoha  holding brief  for  Munene  for Respondent/Applicant: Present

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      27. 5.2021