Rwama Farmers Co-operative Society Limited v Muramati Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 529 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.55 OF 2001

RWAMA FARMERS  CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETY  LIMITED................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

MURAMATI SACCO SOCIETY  LIMITED.......................................... RESPONDENT

RULING

The Decree Holder  has moved  this Tribunal  vide the Chamber  Summons Application  dated 2. 3.2019,  seeking  for Orders  inter alia:

a. That the  Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to grant  leave  to the Decree  Holder  to  execute  the Decree  issued  on  23. 6.2004;

b. Spent;

c. Costs .

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn  by Harriet  Nyamboki  on even date.

The gist of the  Application  is that  the Decree  Holder  obtained  judgment  on its  counterclaim  for Kshs.18,444,664. 88/= on   23. 6.2004.  That  subsequently, a Decree  was issued  on 23. 6.2004. That  it intends  to execute  the said Decree  but the same  has been caught  up with limitations of actions.

That there  are good  reasons why  the Decree  was not executed  within  the time limited  by law.  They include:

a. That  the file was  archived and  that retrieving  the same  tool long time.

b. That the Decree  Holder  was unable  to trace assets  that could be  attached;

c. That  the loan  advanced  to the Judgment  Debtor  is yet  to be settled.

d. That  the delay  in instituting  the Application  is neither  deliberate  nor  intentional;

e. That  the decree  holder  stands  to  lose a huge  amount  of money  if  the Application  is not allowed.

Respondent’s  Case

Judgment  Debtor  has opposed  the Application vide  the Replying Affidavit  sworn  by  its Chairman, Julius  Waweru. The gist  of the Judgment Debtor’s  opposition  to the Application  is that the same  is time barred,  irredeemable,  irreconcilable  as it has been brought  15 years  after the Judgment  in the claim  was delivered.  That the delay  in executing  the said judgment  within the time  limited  by law has  not  been explained  at all.  That the Decree  Holder’s  right  to execute  the said judgment  lapsed  years ago.

That even  before  originating  this Application,  the Decree  Holder  ought  to  have addressed  the following issues:-

a. The need  to  comply  with the provisions of Order  3 Rule 9  of the Civil Procedure  Rules;

b. The need  to resuscitate the  claim; and

c. The need  for the near counsel to seek  leave  to prosecute  the Application  after judgment.

That  without  prejudice  to the foregoing, the Judgment Debtor  does not  owe the  Decree Holder  the sums sought  to be executed. That  the said  decretal  amount  was recovered vide garnishee  proceedings.

That  the Judgment Debtor  is not telling  the Tribunal  that the Judgment Debtor  Appealed  against  the  Decree of the Tribunal  at the High  Court  vide H.C.NO. 632 OF 2002 whereupon   the Appeal  was settled by way of  a consent  recorded  by both  parties.

That in the circumstances, the Application  is unmerited  and should  be dismissed  with costs.

Issues for determination:

The Decree Holder’s  Application  dated  2. 3.2019 has presented  the following  issues for determination:

a. Whether  the Decree Holder  has established  a proper  basis  to warrant  extension  of time  to execute  a decree;

b. What Orders  are available  in the circumstances.

Limitation  on  execution  of  Decree

The law  governing  limitation  of  time within  party  can execute  a  judgment  is section  4 (4)  of the Limitation  of Actions  Act  (Cap 22) Laws of Kenya it provides:

“ 4 (4)  an action  may not  be brought  upon  a judgment  after  the end of  twelve  years  from the  date  on which  the judgment  was delivered,  or (where  the judgment  or a subsequent  order directs  any payment of money  or the delivery  of any property to  be made  at a certain  date or at  recurring  periods), the  date of  the default  in making  the payment  or delivery  in question, in respect  of  a judgment  debt  may be  recovered  after the  expiration  of  6 years  from  the date  on which  the interest  became  due.”

The court  in the case  of Hudson  Moffat  Mbue  -vs- Settlement  Fund Trustees &  3 others,  ELC NO. 5704 OF 1992interpreted  the meaning  of Section  4 (4)  above in  the following  terms:-

“ What  I understand  the law to  be is that  once  a judgment  has been  rendered, execution  of that judgment  must be  commenced  within the  12 year  period  otherwise  you cannot  obtain  a judgment  and fail  to do anything  about  it  and after 12 years,  have expired, seeks  to execute  the same.  Section 4 (4)  of the limitation  of Actions will bar  you from carrying  on which  such execution. “

Whilst  Section  4 (4)  of the  Act provide  for limitation  of time to execute  a judgment, a question  arises  as to whether  there  exist  a  law that  provides  for extension  of time within  which  to execute  a  judgment  or Decree. We find  a perfect answer  to this  question  in the holding  of the court in the case of  John  Mwaniki  Mwaura- vs-  John Ndonyo Njuguna [2018]eKLR. At paragraph  10 thereof, the  court  states  thus:

“ It can  be deduced  from  Section  4 (4)  above  that the limitation  period  for executing  judgments  is therefore 12 years. The  Applicant  can only  benefit  if there is  a provision  in law which  allows  him an  extension  of  time.  Part  III of the limitation  of Actions Act,  which provides  for extension  of limitation  periods  has been cited. I have  gone through  this  part of  the statute but nowhere  does  it  provide  for an extension  of a limitation  period in relation  to judgment. indeed,  counsel  for the Applicant  referred  me to no particular  provision  of part III as giving  this court jurisdiction  to extend  the time period  given  for executing  judgments.  Section 95  of the Civil  procedure  Act, only  allows  the court discretion  to extend  time for  periods  which have  been prescribed  under  the said Act.  This thus  cannot  cover  periods  covered  under  the limitation  of Actions Act,  which is  a different  statute. I do not see how  section 1A, or 1B  of the Civil  Procedure  Act,  can assist  the Application. These  are general provisions  of the law which direct  the  court to be efficacious  and efficient  in the discharge  of its duties. Order  57  rule  1 is  a general  provision of the law  directing  that  Application  be filed  by way  of Notice  of Motion. Order  50 Rule  6,  does give power  to the court  to extend  the time frame given in  the Rules directing  the period  within  which to do certain  acts.  This  cannot extend  periods under  the limitation  of Actions Act. Article  15 a(2)  (d)  of the constitution  enjoins  the court to do justice  without  undue  regard  to procedural technicalities. However,  limitation  periods  cannot be  said  to be procedural  technicalities  for they  are provisions  of substantive  law,  and in  my view, Article  15 a (2) (d) cannot  be used to extend  limitation  periods..”

We have  extensively  set out the  law  relating  to limitation  of Actions  as far as  judgments  are concerned so as put the issues  in the instant  application  into  perspective.

What  is apparent  is that the limitation  of Actions  Act does  not provide  for extension  of time  to  execute  a decree.  As is also clear,  no other  law provides  for  this  the import of this  position  of law to the circumstances  of this Application  is that we do not  have jurisdiction  to extend  time with  which  the Decree Holder  may execute  the judgment  delivered  on  23. 6.2004.

The consequence  of this finding  is that  the Decree  Holder’s  Application  dated  2. 3.2019 is unmerited  and we  hereby  dismiss  it with costs  to the Judgment  Debtor. Orders  accordingly.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH  DAY OF  MARCH,  2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA   CHAIRPERSON   SIGNED  4. 3.2021

HON. J. MWATSAMA  DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED  4. 3.2021

B. AKUSALA    MEMBER   SIGNED  4. 3.2021

Muriuki  for Respondent

Nekesa  holding brief  for Mukhalia  for Applicant

HON. B. KIMEMIA   CHAIRPERSON   SIGNED  4. 3.2021