Richard Olendo, Constantine Wasonga & Loi Muhunja Kirui v Commissioner For Co-operative Development, Ministry of Industry, Trade & Co-operatives & Maseno University Sacco Society Limited [2020] KECPT 92 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2019

RICHARD  OLENDO ...........................................................1STAPPELLANT

DR. CONSTANTINE  WASONGA.....................................2ND APPELLANT

LOI MUHUNJA  KIRUI.....................................................3RD APPELLANT

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER  FOR CO-OPERATIVE

DEVELOPMENT, MINISTRY  OF INDUSTRY,

TRADE  & CO-OPERATIVES..........................................1ST RESPONDENT

MASENO  UNIVERSITY  SACCO

SOCIETY  LIMITED................................PROPOSED  2ND  RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter  for determination  is a Notice of Motion  application  dated  28. 6.19 seeking  the following  orders:

1. That  this matter  be  certified  urgent  and be heard  exparte  in the first  instance.

2. That the  Applicant Maseno  University  Sacco Society  Limited  be enjoined  as the  2nd  Respondent  and allowed  to participate  in all  proceedings  herein.

3. That the  costs of the Application  be provided  for.

Based  on the grounds  on the face of  the Application  and supported  by the Affidavit  of Prof. Andrew  Oduor,  treasurer  of  Maseno  University Sacco deponed  and filed  on  28. 6.2019.  The Application  is opposed  vide the Replying  Affidavit  of Dr. Constantine  Wasonga filed on  8. 7.2019.

The parties  filed written  submissions, the  Appellant  on  29. 8.19,  the proposed  2nd  Respondent/Applicant on 30. 8.2019.

The Applicant  prays  to be  enjoined  in the Appeal, being  the  Co-operative  Society  who  is  the subject  matter of the inquiry.

The Applicant  has submitted  that they  hold  the crucial  records  which aided  the inquiry  and its  for their  benefit  to be  enjoined as parties  to the Appeal.  That the  matter  in issue  is  the inquiry  made  by the  1st  Respondent  against  the Appellants  who were serving  in the proposed  2nd  Respondents, being  the Society. That Order 1 Rule  10  (2)  Civil Procedure Rule  provides   for enjoining  of parties  as may be  necessary  to adjudicate  the matter  and settle  all questions  involved in the suit.

The Appellants have submitted  that the Applicant  lacks  locus standi since  they have  no  legal  role  to  play  in the matter,  this being  a decision  made by the 1st  Respondent  in its  administration. That there  are other  suits CTC269/19,271/19 and 272/19  pending  and they  have not  been disclosed  hence  the Applicant’s Application  is sub-judice.

That  the Application  lacks  merit  and is not founded  on any  provisions of the Law  and should  therefore  be dismissed.

We have  carefully  considered  the Application  and the  submissions  in the matter. We  note that a surcharge  arises out of  an  inquiry  into the affairs of a Co-operative  Society under section 58 of Co-operative Society Act. Indeed  after  an inquiry, the Commissioner  is required  to  report  the findings  of the inquiry at  a General  Meeting  of the Society and then  give directions  for the implementation  of the  recommendations of the inquiry  report.  The Co-operative  Society  therefore  forms  the subject  matter  over  which  the  inquiry  is done and its therefore  critical  that the said  Society  be  involved  in all the matters  or proceedings  which  are  based  on its affairs. It’s  imperative to  note that the Commissioner carries  out the inquiry  on behalf  of the Co-operative  Society as an oversight  or administrative  body. The Co-operative  Society  is therefore  the basic  organ which carries the responsibilities of the members. The Commissioner  is an administrative  body  and  if in fact  the appellants  had intended  to challenge  the actions  of the Commissioner  in carrying  out the surcharge,  then a Judicial  Review  would suffice. We note  that this  is an Appeal  against  the Surcharge  Order  of the Co-operative  Society against  it’s members.  It  therefore  goes  without  say that  the Co-operative  Society  form  a necessary  party  to the Appeal,  noting  that  the members  of the Co-operative  Society  may be prejudiced  if they  are not enjoined  as a Party to the Appeal.

We therefore  find that  the Application dated  28. 6.2019 has merits  and accordingly  order  as  follows:

1. That Maseno  University  Sacco  Society  Limited  be enjoined  as the 2nd  Respondent.

2. That the  2nd Respondent  is allowed to participate  in all the  proceedings  herein.

3. Costs  in the cause.

Read and delivered in  accordance  with the guidelines  issued  by  the Hon. Chief Justice  on 15. 3.2020, this 9thday of April, 2020.

Prepared by Hon. B.Kimemia Chairman, Hon. F. Terer Deputy Chairman, P. Gichuki Member.

With consent  of the parties, the  final orders  to be delivered  by email, as accordance  to the prevailing  measures  during  the covid-19.

Hon. B. Kimemia        Chairman     Signed      9. 4.2020

Hon. F. Terer    Deputy Chairman      Signed      9. 4.2020

P. Gichuki       Member        Signed      9. 4.2020