Rebecca Mueni Kaviti v Kwetu Sacco Limited [2021] KECPT 519 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.178 OF 2013

REBECCA MUENI  KAVITI..............………….............…............…CLAIMANT

VERSUS

KWETU  SACCO  LIMITED .......................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter for determination is the Notice of Motion Application dated 21. 9.2018, seeking the following prayers:

a.Spent

b.Spent

c.That  the default  judgment  herein  be set aside.

d.That the Respondent  be given  an extension  of time within which  to file its  defence

e.That  the Costs be  in the cause.

The Application  is based  on the grounds  on the face  of the Application  and a Supporting  Affidavit  of Dr.  Stanley  Kyelenzi deponed  on 18. 9.2018.

The Application  is opposed  vide the  grounds  of opposition  dated 9. 11. 2018 filed on 12. 11. 2018.

The parties  were given  directions  on 30. 7.2020  to file written  submissions in the matter  and other matters  in the series. There  was  a previous  Application  dated  2. 11. 2018 and  a Preliminary Objection  dated  16. 11. 2018. The Ruling  in regards to the same was delivered  on 18. 2.2021 forCTC. NO. 385/17, 387/17, 396/13, 400/13, 402/13, 579/13, 583/13 and  584/13. The herein  therefore  applies  to  178/13,  384/17, 386/17,  381/17, 380/17, 383/17,  382/17,  378/17 and  379/17. In these  matters  the parties  were directed  to  file written  submissions  on  26. 11. 2020.

The matter  came  up for compliance  on 4. 3.2021 and by this date, only the Claimant’s  written  submissions  were  in the Tribunal  file. The Respondents were ordered  to  file written  submissions  within  7 days  from  4. 3.21 and  at the  time  of writing  the Ruling,  the Respondent’s  written submissions  were still  not on record.  The Claimant  filed  written submissions  on  15. 2.2021.

In this matter,  we note that  the suit  was filed  on 3. 5.2013 for refund  of  savings  of the Claimant. Judgment  was entered   on 22. 8.2018. The instant  Application  was filed on  24. 9.2018.

The Application  seeks  to  set aside  the default  judgment  and give  extension  of time  to file  a defence. The Applicant  in the Supporting  Affidavit  confirms  that the Summons  were duly  served at their  registered  offices.  That they  only realized  their non-action  when the auctioneers  went to  make  a proclamation. That  they had misplaced  the documents  due to a mix up on their  offices but  the same were traced  on  10. 9.2018. That  the Claimant  was still their  member and  wished  to continue  as a member.

The  Claimant written submissions  were  that there  were no  grounds  set out  to blame the  claimant. That  the Claimant  should  not be  punished  for the mistakes  of the Respondent. That after  filing  the Application,  the Respondent  obtained  stay  orders  and never  took steps  to prosecute  the same two  years  down the line.

We have carefully  considered  the pleadings of the parties. We note  that the principles  of setting aside  a default  judgment  were set out  in PITHON  WAWERU  MAINA  VS THUKA  MUGIRIA [1983] eKLR and MBOGO  -VS-  SHAH[1968] EA  93 & 95 is  discretion  where  it was  held that: “  the discretion is free  and  the main concern  is to  do justice  to the parties.” The discretion  is intended  to be  exercised  to avoid  injustice  or  hardship  resulting from accident,  inadvertence or excusable mistake  or error but  it is not designed  to assist  a person who  deliberately  sought,  whether  by  evasion  or otherwise, to  obstruct  or delay  the cause  of  justice.

Also  in ONGOM VS OWOTA the court must be  satisfied  about  one of the two things  namely:

1. No proper  service  of summons

2. Failure  to appear due to  sufficient  cause

In the  matter,  we will  rely  on the issue of service  since this was  a default  summary  judgment.

The  Applicant  confirms  in their Supporting  Affidavit  deponed  on 18. 9.2018 paragraph  3 that they were  served  with the summons  to enter  appearance. However,  they did not  act on the said  summons  until  the auctioneers  went to  proclaim  and in paragraph  6  they confirm  to have found  the documents  on 10. 9.2018.

It is  an established principle  in Patel  - vs-  EA  Cargo case (supra) that  the court  “ will  not set  aside  judgment  unless  it is satisfied  that there  is  a defence  on the merits that is a  defence which  raises  triable  issues  or a prima facie  defence  which  should  go to trial  for adjudication.”

In this  regard,  sufficient  cause  must be  demonstrated  for the court  to issue orders. In considering  sufficient  cause,  the court must  bear  in mind the object  of substantial  justice to all  the parties  concerned  without  regard  to  technicalities of the law.

In the instant matter,  the Applicant  indeed  received  the summons  and did not  enter appearance  or file  a defence.  In their  Application,  instead  of attaching  a draft  defence to enable  the Tribunal  to determine  whether  the defence raises  triable  issues,the Applicant  sought  for extension  of time  to file a  defence.  Its trite  law that  the procedure  in such matters  is for parties  to file  a draft  defence  to enable  the Tribunal  to establish  whether the same  raises  a prima facie  defence.  We note that  this has  not been done by the Applicant.

We also  note that the  Application  was filed  under  Certificate  of Urgency in September 2018 and stay  of execution  was granted  in the first  instance.  Thereafter the Applicant  did not  bother  to follow  up on their  Application, and indeed  to date,  they have never  filed written  submissions  in the matter  as ordered.

Setting  aside is a  matter  of discretion  upon  sufficient  cause  being demonstrated. In this  matter,  there is  no plausible  reason  that is  demonstrative  and persuasive  for the Tribunal  to exercise  discretion  in their  favour  to set aside  the default  summary judgment. No plausible  reason  has been  demonstrated. Indeed  a party who brings  a matter under  Certificate of Urgency has an  obligation  to  ensure  its  expeditious  disposal. The dictates  of justice  demand  that any  matter  under Certificate of  Urgency must be  prosecuted  expeditiously  and with  the same  urgency as it was filed.  The Tribunal  cannot be  at the beck  and call  of any indolent  party  who feels  no  obligation  to proceed with  a matter with expedition or to  offer  an explanation  as to why  an Application  that is  urgent, has not been  prosecuted.  The Respondent  did not  file any written  submission and  they continue  to enjoy stay  of execution  orders  for over  2 years  now.  This is a  matter of  refund  of deposits  and there  was no justification  for failure  to enter  appearance.  There  is no  draft defence  filed or  any  written  submissions  to persuade  the Tribunal  as to why  the application  should  be granted.

We  have noted  the age of  the matter and  that the  Claimant  is entitled  to the fruits  of her  judgment, the  Respondent  having been  duly  served with the summons,  failing  to enter  appearance,  failing  to file  a draft  defence,  failing  to file written  submissions , cannot  blame  anyone  in the matter.  The Claimant  saved her money  diligently  in the Co-operative  Society and the same  should be  refunded  as per  the judgment  entered.

We therefore dismiss the Application  dated  21. 9.2018 with costs.

These Orders to apply to CTC. NO. 178/13, 384/17, 386/17, 381/17, 380/17, 382/17, 378/17 and 379/2017.

The Claimant  may proceed  to the execution  of the decretal  amounts  in the matters.

Ruling read, signed, dated and delivered virtually this 6thday of May, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed 6. 5.2021

Hon. M. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson  Signed 6. 5.2021

Mr. Gitonga Kamiti  Member   Signed 6. 5.2021

Mutunga Advocate for Claimant:  Present

Matter is  for Ruling.

No appearance  for  Respondent

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  6. 5.2021