Sammy Kipchirchir Maiyo v Air Kenya Sacco Society Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya (Garnishee) [2021] KECPT 238 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.403 OF 2005

SAMMY KIPCHIRCHIR  MAIYO....................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

AIR  KENYA  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED .............................RESPONDENT

CO-OPERATIVE  BANK  OF KENYA..............................................GARNISHEE

RULING

1.  The Notice of  Motion  for determination  is dated  7th  December  2020 and it seeks  for orders:

a. The Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to make a  Garnishee  Order Nisi against  Co-operative  Bank  Limited, T- Mall  Branch the Garnishee  herein,  being the  “Account  number  [Particulars Withheld]”   ordering  that all  monies  deposited,  lying  and being  held  in  deposit  by the Garnishee  respectively to the  credit  of AIR  KENYA SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED   the Respondent/judgment  Debtor  herein  be attached  to answer  the Decree  for the sum  of Kshs.233,434. 80 being  the amount  in respect  of which the  Honourable  Tribunal  made an  award  and  interest  in favour  of the Claimant/Decree  Holder  herein.

b. A  Garnishee  Order Nisi upon   the Garnishee  do issue  and the same  be served  on the Garnishee  before  being served  on the Respondent/judgment  Debtor.

c. The Garnishee  do appear  before this  Honourable  Tribunal  on an appointed  dated and  time to show cause  why it should  not pay  the Claimant’s  Advocates  the sum of  Kshs.233,434. 80 being  the amount  in the decree  dated  2nd March  2006 and accrued  interest  in favour  of the Claimant  herein  and further  costs  of these Garnishee proceedings.

d. The Claimant  be at liberty  to apply  for any  such  further  orders/or  directions  as the  Honourable  Tribunal  may  deem fit  and just  to grant.

e. Costs  of the application  be borne  by the Respondent.

2.  The Application  is grounded  on the grounds  on the  face  of the Application  and Affidavit  in support  of Sammy  Kipchirchir  Maiyosworn  on 7. 12. 2020 and he avers  that the Tribunal  issued  a decree  dated  2nd March  2006  in favour  of  the Claimant  for the sum of  Kshs. 84,280/= inclusive  of costs.

The Respondent  is yet to  satisfy  the decree  and to  date   the interest  has accrued  and Respondent  owes  the Claimant  Kshs.233,434. 80/=.

Respondent  bank account  in order  to recover  the amount  of Kshs.233,434. 80/=.The Respondent  holds account Number  [Particulars Withheld] at Co-operative  Bank  of  Kenya  T- Mall  Branch.

3.  The Respondent  filed   Preliminary  Objection  on a  point of  Law dated  25. 1.2021  in response  to the Application. Stating  the Notice of Motion  dated  7. 12. 2020 is hopelessly  misconceived, frivolous and  devoid  of merit.

The Respondent states  the Application  is time barred  by  virtue  of Section  4 (1)  C,  4(1)d, and  4  (4) Limitation  of Actions Act  Cap  22.

4.  The parties  filed their submissions  with Claimant  filing  their written submissions  dated  4. 5.2021  on  5. 5.2021  and Respondents  filing their  submissions  dated  16. 4.2021 on 27. 4.2021.

The Garnishee  did not  respond  to the Application  despite  service.

Having  analyzed  the pleading  notice of motion  the affidavit  and submissions  of parties  the issues  that arise  are:

Issue one:

Whether  the claim  is statute  barred?

Issue  two:

Is the Claimant  liable  to be paid  the sums  owing .

5.  Issue one:

Whether  the claim is  statute  barred?

The Respondent  avers the claim  is time barred  thus the  Application  dated 7. 12. 2020ought to  be dismissed.

The  Claimant  seeks  to  execute  a judgment  dated 10. 2.2006 and  decree  of 2. 3.06.

The Respondent  argues  that Section  4 (1) c, 4 (1) d and  4 (4) Limitation  of Action  Actwhich stipulates:

“(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,  and no arrears  of interest  in respect  of a judgment  debt  may  be recovered  after  the expiration  of six years  from the  date  on which  the interest  became  due.”

6.  The judgment  ought  to have been  executed  on or  before  2. 3.2017. the  quoted  case of  M’ikiara  M’Rinkanya & Another  - vs-  Gilbert  Kabeere M’mbijiwe[2007]eKLR. Court  held  all post  judgment  proceedings including originating  proceedings  and  interlocutory  proceedings  for  execution  of judgment  are statute  barred  after 12  years.

The Respondent  further  avers the  Applicant  has made  allegations  that he made several  attempts  to  execute  the decree  unfortunately  but failed  to attach  any evidence  to  demonstrate  any attempts  taken  to  execute  the Decree  dated  2. 3.2006 other  than the present  Application.

In light of the same no extension of time was sought  to execute  Judgment/Decree.

7.  The Claimant  in response  to the Preliminary Objection  in their  submissions  stated  it is not  in dispute  there is  a Decree  issued  by the Tribunal  on 2. 3.2006 and the same  is yet to  be satisfied. They  state  there were  attempts  made  by Claimant  to execute  the decree  and the same were  unsuccessful. The remedy  of Garnishee  is made available  to the  Claimant  under  Order 23  Rule  1 Civil Procedure  Rule  2010.

The Claimant  submits  the Respondent  should  not hide behind  the  provisions  of the  Act  to avoid  making good  the Decree.

The  claimant  further submits  Section  4 (4)  of the  Limitation  of Action  Act  uses the  word Maythus  the  same is  at the court’s  discretion.

Having  looked  at the issues canvassed  we see  no  attempts  by claimant  or  evidence  of  the same  to show  Claimant  had  tried  getting  the Respondent  to pay the  decree  dated  2. 3. 2006.

With  this  in mind  we find  that  indeed  the claim is  statute  barred.

With the  above  issue No. 2  shall not  be discussed as the claim  fails  ab initio

Upshot

The Application  dated  7. 12. 2020  is  dismissed

The Claimant  slept  on their rights  and unfortunately  time  caught  up with  them and  as such  have  to pay  the  price.

1.  The Preliminary  Objection  is therefore  upheld. Each  party  to bear their  own costs.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021

HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021

MR. GITONGA KAMITI MEMBER SIGNED 29. 7.2021

TRIBUNAL CLERK MAINA CHARLES

NYANGENA ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE CLAIMANT.

HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021