Peterson Kamau Kiarie, John Njoroge Irungu, Bernard Mbogo, Kimani Karanja Karoki, Samuel Mwangi Mbugua, Peter Mwangi Mucina & Gachuhi Cyrus Mwangi 6 others v Huruma Minibus Sacco Limited [2021] KECPT 509 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 391 OF 2016

PETERSON  KAMAU KIARIE ....................................…...................1ST CLAIMANT

JOHN  NJOROGE IRUNGU...............................................................2ND  CLAIMANT

BERNARD  MBOGO............................................................................3RD  CLAIMANT

KIMANI  KARANJA  KAROKI............................................................4TH CLAIMANT

SAMUEL  MWANGI  MBUGUA .........................................................5TH CLAIMANT

PETER  MWANGI  MUCINA...............................................................6TH CLAIMANT

GACHUHI CYRUS  MWANGI ............................................................7TH CLAIMANT

VERSUS

HURUMA  MINIBUS SACCO  LIMITED  ......................................... RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 12. 8.2020, the Judgment Debtor has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

1. That  this application  be certified  as urgent  and services be  dispensed  with in  the first instance;

2. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to stay  the warrants of attachment  and the execution  orders issued by this Honourable  Tribunal  on 31st January 2020 and re-issued  on 30th  July  2020 pending hearing  and determination  of this application. ;

3. That this  Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to call into  account all  the interest  payable  in this matter;

4. That this Honorable to call  upon the Auctioneers  to file  and justify  their bill  of cost being  charged;

5. That this Honourable  Tribunal  to order  and direct  the judgment debtor  to be  allowed  to pay the  balance  of Decretal amount  in installments  as already  proposed; and

6. That this  Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to issue  any such  other order as it  may deed  expedient  and just for the  ends of  justice.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  following Affidavit.

a. Supporting  Affidavit  sworn Jacob  Singa Imbai on 12. 8.2020; and

b. Further Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by the said  Jacob  Singa  Imbai  on  10. 9.2020.

The Respondent  has  opposed  the Application vide  the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by John  Njoroge  Irungu on 8. 9.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  29. 10. 2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent filed  its  written submissions  on  15. 9.2020 while  the Claimants did so  on 21. 10. 2020.

Judgment  Debtor’s  Contention

It is  the Judgment  Debtor’s  case  that the  Decree  Holder  as advertised  its Motor vehicle  Registration No. KCG 076Yfor sale  yet it has  substantially  settled the decretal  amount.  That out  of the original  sum of  Kshs.706,231. 70/=,  the Judgment  Debtor  has paid  a sum of  Kshs.613,500/=. That  the Auctioneers (ICON) have so far been  paid Kshs.65,000/=.

That the decree  holder  have  been computing  interest  at their own  rates  and scales and  not taking  into  account  the installments paid.

Decree Holder’s  Case

On  its part,  the Decree  Holder  has opposed  the Application  or grounds  that the Judgment  Debtor is  not  candid on  settlement  of the Decretal  amount. That  judgment  was entered  in the matter  almost  2 years  ago yet  the Judgment  Debtor  has only been  making  intermittent payments. That  the prayer  for computation  is not warranted  as the Judgment  Debtor  has given  the said computation  to the Respondent. That  if the Respondent  is sincere, then  it should  pay what  is not in dispute.

Issues  for determination

The Judgment  Debtor’s Application  has presented  the following  issues  for  determination :

a. What  is the balance  of the decretal  amount?

b. Whether  the Judgment  Debtor  has made out  a case  to be allowed  to settle  the balance  of the decretal  amount  by way  of installments;

c. Whether  the Judgment Debtor  has made  out a proper  case  to  warrant  the Auctioneers  to be ordered  to  account  for the monies  paid  to  them.

Balance  of the Decretal  Amount

Both  parties  agree that  they  entered  a consent  on  8. 11. 2018. The  said consent  set out  the decretal  amount  to be Kshs.513,501. 70/=. Vide  a Ruling  delivered  by the Tribunal  on 8. 1.2019, the decretal  amount  was  to  attract  interest  and  costs  from the  date of  filing  the claim.

We have  perused  the decree  which was  drawn  subsequently. It sets  out the  decretal  amount  as follows:

a. Principal  amount – Kshs.513,501. 70

b. Interest   -  Kshs.144,725. 60

c. Costs   - Kshs.145,630

The said  decree  is dated  5. 7.2019.

From the submissions  filed  by the Respondent,  it seems  to challenge  and/or  contest  the manner  in which  costs  and interest  was arrived  at. We  hasten  to say  that the decretal  amount (which  includes  costs  and  interest) is as per  the decree  set out  above  and  that the same is not subject  to  challenge  in the manner  proposed  by the Judgment  Debtor.

The decretal amount  is clearly  discemible  in the said  decree  in  no uncertain  terms.

As per  the said  decree,  the total  sums payable  is thus  Kshs.803,856. 70 out  of  this,  the claimant  confirms  receipt  of  Kshs.613,500. 00 leaving a balance of Kshs.190,357. This  is the figure  the Judgment  Debtor  confirms to  be the balance  due  and owing.

The Decree  Holders  contends  that this  amount  continues  to accrue  interest  at court rates. We agree  with them  as much.

We thus find that the  balance  of decretal  amount  is Kshs.190,357 and the same  continues  to accrue  interest  at court rates  until  payment  in full.

Whether  the Decree Holders  were  justified  to recover  the said balance

It is  admitted  and  even  discemible  from the  record  that the  Judgment Debtor  is still  in arrears  o Kshs.190,357. The Decree  Holder  is  thus  within  its right  to recover  the same  by way  of execution.

Auctioneers  fees

The Judgment  Debtor  has taken  issue with  Auctioneers fees. From the material  before  us, the  Auctioneer has  been paid a sum of Kshs.60,000. 00. The  Judgment  Debtor  wants us  to  compel  the Auctioneer  justify this figure.

We hasten  to say  that  assessment  of auctioneers fees, much  as the Advocate  fees  are governed  by separate  and distinct  regimes  of law.  Auctioneers fees  are reckoned  from the Auctioneers Rules. If a party  has a dispute  about  the  sums  claimed  by the  Auctioneer then the appropriate  approach  to ask  the relevant  court to  first ascertain  the said fees  before  payment  one cannot pay  fees the purport  to work backwards.

Therefore, to the extent  that  the Judgment Debtor  paid Auctioneers  fees  without  ascertains  its legality,  we do not  have the  requisite  jurisdiction  to reverse  the same.

Payment  by  installments

Whilst we have  jurisdiction  to make  an order  for settlement  of decretal  by way  of installments,  by  dint of order  21 Rule 12  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules, we find  that the  Judgment  Debtor  in the present  case  has  not made  out a  case  to warrant  us  to do so.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that  we do not  find merit  in the Judgment  Debtor’s  Application  dated  12. 8.2020 and hereby  dismiss  it  with costs  to the Decree  Holder.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 4th day of  March,  2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  4. 3.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki    Member   Signed  4. 3.2021

Mr. B. Akusala    Member   Signed  4. 3.2021

Thuita  Advocate  for  Claimant/Respondent

No appearance for  Respondent/Applicant

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  4. 3.2021