Robert Njagi Kimotho & Lorna Margaret Kariuki v County Sacco Society Limited & Restorers Consult Auctioneers [2021] KECPT 275 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.273 OF 2020

ROBERT  NJAGI  KIMOTHO.......................................................1ST CLAIMANT

LORNA MARGARET KARIUKI .................................................2ND CLAIMANT

VERSUS

COUNTY  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED ............................... 1ST RESPONDENT

RESTORERS CONSULT AUCTIONEERS...............................2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Application  for determination  is dated 16. 3.2021 which  is brought  under Order  10 Rule  IV and II, Civil Procedure  Rules 2010 Section  1A, 1B  and 3A Civil Procedure Act Cap  21  and Order  12 Rule  2, 3  and  7  and  Order 51  Civil Procedure Rule  2010.

The Application  seeks  for Orders  of :

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

b. That  this Honorable  Court  be pleased  to set aside the judgment  dated  12th March  2021 and all the Consequential  Orders  made against  the complainant  and grant  leave  to the complainant to defend   the Respondent’s  counter claim.

c. That the  order or directions  issued  by  this Honourable  court on  11th march  2021 dismissing  the complainant’s  Application  dated 4th  September  2020 and  the Statement  of complainant  dated  4th September,  2021 together  with all  other  consequential  Orders  be reviewed,  varied  and/or  set aside.

d. That  the interim  orders  granted  by Hon.  B. Kimemia, Chairperson, Co-operatives Tribunal  on  7th  September,  2020 be reinstated  and  extended  pending  hearing and  determination  of the  Application  herein.

e. That this  Honorable  Court  be pleased  to order  stay  of execution  against  the Complainant  in respect  of the Judgment of the Court herein and all the  Consequential Orders pending hearing and determination  of this Application.

f.   That  this Honorable  court be pleased  to make  such further  orders  as are  necessary  for the  ends  of justice  to be served.

g. That the  cost of  the application  be in  the cause.

2.  The same  is  founded  on the grounds  on the  face  of  the  Application  and supported  by the  Affidavit  of  Robert  Njagi Kimotho sworn  on  16. 3.2021 and  avers  as follows:

That  judgment  was entered  against  the complainants herein  on 12. 3.2021 which  they seek  to be set  aside.

Their  statement of  complaint  on 4th September  2020  which  was filed with an Application  which  sought  for injunction  against  the Respondent  from attaching, proclaiming,  auctioning  and selling  their property.

The main  ground  for the Application  to be granted  an  injunction  was  that the property  that had  been  proclaimed  was matrimonial  and did not  form part  of the collateral  security for the loan  and that  the amounts  claimed  were  exaggerated.

3.  That on  18. 11. 2020   the Claimant’s  Advocates requested  for loan  statements  to be availed  to them  for sorting  and the  court ordered  for statements  to be supplied  to  them by 9. 12. 2020 when  the case was  to come  up for  pre- trial direction.

On 9. 12. 2020 the Claimant’s  had not  received  the loan  statements  and  court directed  parties  to comply  with order  II before the  hearing  that was  slated  for 11. 3.2021.

On 11. 3.2021 when his  advocates  logged  into  the virtual  session  they  were unable  to  unmute  to address  court and  her device  had technical  challenges  and by  the  time she inquired  of the outcome  she was informed  by the court  clerk  that the  complainant’s Application  had been  dismissed  and  Respondent  Counter Claim  heard  and determined  and judgment was  to be delivered  on 12. 3.2021.

4.  On 12. 3.2021 when  she mentioned  the same  before  the chairperson  and  made  oral applications  for the court  to  review  its  orders  to reinstate  the claimant’s  suit  and Application  the court  nevertheless  delivered  its judgment  and allowed  the Respondent’s  counter claim  dated  23. 9.2020 in its entirely.

The Applicant  avers they  have a good  Defence  to the  counter claim  and ought  to be given  an opportunity  to be  heard.  The Applicant  attached  the Draft  Defence  to counter claim.

5.  The Respondent  filed a  Replying  Affidavit  dated  15. 4.2021 sworn  by Victor  Joe  Ireri the Chief  Executive  Officer  and in response  stated  the  1st  Applicant  in March  2018 applied  for a loan  amounting  to  Kshs.4,500,000/= from  the  1st Respondent.

On 16. 4.2018 he was granted  a loan  of Kshs.3,000,000/=  and it was  to  be repaid  at a rate  of  18% and 5% penalty  if late  in repayment. The  2nd  Applicant  was his guarantor.

In the month  of September  2018 the Applicant defaulted  and thus  the  1st Respondent  instructed  the 2nd Respondent  to recover the outstanding loan which amounted to  Kshs.3,487,556/= as  at 7. 9.2020.

As a result  of the execution  the Applicant filed a  Statement of  Claim  citing  breach  of  contract  on part  of  the  1st Respondent.  On  18. 11. 2020 the Applicants were  granted  14 days  to  file their  response  to the Counter Claim  on  1. 12. 2020  the  Respondent  through  their  Advocates  on record  served the  Applicants  with the Applicants Statement  of Account  vide email. On  9. 12. 2020the parties  appeared for Pre-trial  and Applicants given  more time  to file their  response  to the Counter Claim and matter scheduled  for hearing in Embu on 11. 3.2021.

6.  On 11. 3.2021 when the matter  was called  out there  was  no representative  for the Claimant/Applicant  which  led  to the dismissal  of the Applicant’s  Application  and Respondent  counter claim  heard  and determined in favour  of the  Respondents.

The Applicants have not  annexed a draft Defence  to the counter claim  but just  provided  grounds  for  their  Defence  and  the same does not  raise triable issues  to establish  a plausible  Defence  in light of  the fact  that  the  Applicant’s  have admitted  to the loan.

The Respondent  state  the Application  is devoid  of merit and thus  Application  had not  demonstrated  any just  cause  to warrant  setting aside of  the judgment  delivered  on 12. 3.2021.

7.  The Applicant  filed  a Supplementary  Affidavit  in response  to the Replying Affidavit  and  reiterated  he has  been servicing  the loan  and he has paid  a tune of  Kshs.2,500,000/= and denies  the  Kshs.3,487,556/=  figure.

That they  had indeed  attached  their draft Defence  to  the Application.  The Applicant’s Advocate  did not  access  the loan  Statements  Account  hence unable  to file  the Defence  to the Counter Claim. The court has not considered  that the Respondent  intended  to auction  the Claimant’s  goods including  household  goods, herds  of cattle and  property  which is part of  his  matrimonial  properties  and  was not  listed  as collateral security  for the loan.  That  if  the Orders  are not  granted  the Applicant  will be  subjected  to irreparable  harm and loss.

Submissions  by the  Applicant  dated  27. 4.  2021  were filed  on  28. 4.2021.  1st  Respondent  filed their written submissions  dated  5. 5.2021 on  10. 5.2021.

8.  Analysis

Having considered the Applicant’s case and Respondent  Response  and submissions  the issue  at hand  are:

Issue one

Whether the judgment  delivered  on 12. 3.2021  should  be set aside.

Issue two

Costs

Issue One:

Whether the judgment  delivered  on 12. 3.2021  should  be set aside.

Order  12 Rule  3 Civil  Procedure  Rule  provides  for

(i)  If on the day  fixed  for hearing  after  the suit  has  been  called  on for  hearing outside  the court,  only  the  Defendant  attends  and he admits no part of  the claim,  the suit  shall  be  dismissed  except  for good  cause  to be  recorded  by the court.

(ii)   If  the defendant  has counter claim, he  may  prove his  Counter Claim  so far  as the burden  of  proof  lies  on him.

Order  12 Rule  6 provides  for dismissals  of suits.

9.  In the current  case the  matter  was  scheduled  for  hearing  on  11. 3.2021 in Embu. All  the  parties  were  to have  complied  with the  orders  given  on 9. 12. 2020.

The applicants did not  file a  response  to the  Counter Claim  as directed  and  they  allege  they were  waiting  for Statement of  Accounts from  the 1st Respondent.

The 1st Respondent  however  stated the same were  sent  via email on 1. 12. 2020 a fact  the Applicant’s herein  not  disputed. They  have not  denied  or addressed the issue  of email  in their  Supplementary  Affidavit which  would  have  clarified  the issue  at hand.

The  Applicants have  further  not  demonstrated  action  taken  to follow up  on the same  even as  the hearing  date approached.

There  was non-compliance  from their  end  and they  cannot  be allowed to cry  foul at  this  stage.

The hearing  on 11. 3.2021 was scheduled  in presence  of both parties. The  Tribunal  hearings  are  physical unless  otherwise  directed.  On the said  date  the Applicant/Claimant  was not  in  court when  the matter was  called out  if at all  since  the hearing  would have  proceeded.

10.  The Respondents diligently  attended the court session  in Embu  and their evidence  taken  and judgment  delivered on  12. 1.2021.

For the  Applicant  to  now claim technological  hitches  when  the matter  was to be  heard  physical  cannot  hold  water.

Judgment  was given  after hearing  the parties, that is  1st Respondent.

As  much as  the court  has discretion  to set  aside judgment  this is  a classic  case of  the Claimant not being  intent  with their  case  especially  having  been filed under  Certificate  of Urgency and being  given a hearing date.

The object  of the discretion  to set  aside  is to  avoid  injustice  or hardship resulting from accident,  inadvertence, or  excusable   mistake  or error, but  is not  designed  to  assist  a person  who has  deliberately  sought, whether  by  evasion  or otherwise,  to  obstruct  or delay  the course  of justice (Shah  -vs-  Mbogo) as upheld  by  court  in  Mbogo  - vs- Shah [1968] EA 93.

11. The issue  of the  Draft  Defence  to the  Counter Claim  will not  arise. If  the draft  had been  done no  reason  is forwarded  as to why  the same  was not  filed  in good time  and later  request  for  the Statement  of Account.

Issue two:

Costs

Costs  follow  the event  and as such  the same  are  to be paid by the  Claimant since  they  have not  succeeded  in their  Application.

The upshot  of the above  is that:

The  Application  dated  16. 3.2021 is found  to  be without  merit  and as  such  dismissed  with  costs  to  be paid  to 1st Respondent.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually at Nairobi this 19thday of August,2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed       19. 8.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama              Deputy Chairperson  Signed       19. 8.2021

Mr. Gitonga Kamiti              Member                       Signed       19. 8.2021

Tribunal Clerk                       R. Leweri

Miss  Wangui  holding brief  for Miss  Wachira for  1st and  2nd Claimant

Miss Mutua  holding brief  for Kathungu for  1st Respondent

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed       19. 8.2021