Sharon Wangai v Linda Wacheke Gitau [2019] KECPT 48 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 217 OF 2019

SHARON  WANGAI………………………………………………..……………CLAIMANT

VERSUS

LINDA WACHEKE GITAU.………..………………………………..……..RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter  for determination  is  a Notice of Motion  applications  dated  5. 4.2019 by the claimant  and respondent’s application  dated 10. 5.19 on these  applications,  a ruling  date  had been  issued  for  21. 8.19 however,  on the same  date,  the parties  indicated  to the tribunal  that  there  was new  developments  in the matter  and the parties  were to  come back  on 24. 10. 19 to  record a consent. However,  on the said  date filed  another  application  under certificate  of urgency seeking  for a  ruling date  be issued  to the 2 applications  since  the parties had not agreed .

We therefore set a ruling  date  for the  2  application  owing  to the fact  that  both  application  filed  under  certificate  of urgency  and parties had  not agreed.

The  application  dated 5. 4.2019 seek  the following  orders:-

1. Thatthis application  be certified  as  extremely urgent and be  heard  forthwith  ex-parte  and service  be dispensed  of in the  first instance.

2. Thatpending  the determination  of this application  an order  do issue  compelling  the respondent  to immediately  start  repaying  her loan  of Kshs.1,000,000. 00 together  with the attendant  interest  with Mentor  Sacco  Society  Limited until completion  of payment  of the said  loan.

3. Thatpending  the determination  of this suit  an order  do issue  compelling  the respondent  to immediately  start  repaying  her loan  of Kshs.1,000,000. 00 together  with   the attendant  interest  with Mentor  Sacco  Society  Limited until  completion  of payment  of the said  loan.

3. Thatan order do issue  for  the  attachment  of movable  and immovable  properties in satisfaction  of the decree.

4. Thatwarrants  of arrest  do immediately  issue  against  the respondent  in lieu  of failure  to immediately  repay  Kshs.1,000,000. 00 together  with the attendant  interest  towards  Mentor  Sacco  Society  Limited  being  the amount  of money  the respondent  borrowed  from the  said Sacco.

5. Thatan order do issue barring  the respondent  from all  travel  outside kenya until  repayment  in full  of Kshs.1,000,000. 00 together  with the  attendant  interest  loan  taken  from Mentor Sacco Society Limited.

6. Thatin the alternative  to (6) above  an order  do issue  directing  the respondent  to deposit  her passport  with the honorable  tribunal  pending  the  determination  of this  application  and suit.

7. Thatthe Officer  Commanding  the Station (OCS) Kilimani Police Station  do oversee  and ensure  compliance  of the  orders  issued.

8. Thatcosts  of this application.

Based  on the grounds  on the face of the application  and the supporting  affidavit  of the claimant.

The  respondent  also  filed an application  dated  10. 5.19 seeking the  following  orders:-

1. Thatthis honorable  tribunal be pleased  to review  the order issued  on the  24th  April  2019 and extended  on 8th  May 2019.

2. Thatpending  the hearing  and determination  of this application  this  honorable  tribunal  be pleased  to set aside  the orders  issued  on  the  24th  April  2019 and extended  on  8th May  2019.

3. Thatin the  alternative  to the  above  the claimant  be compelled to deposit  with  the tribunal  maintenance  costs  required  in process  of civil jail to  cater  for the respondent.

4. Thatthis honorable  tribunal  do issue  an order  against   the  claimant  to serve  all the necessary  documents  pertaining  to this  claim  upon th respondents advocates.

5. Thatcosts  of this application  be in the cause.

Based on the  grounds  on the face of the application  and supported  by the supporting  affidavit  of  LINDA WACHEKE the respondent  herein.

The same  is opposed  vide  the replying  affidavit  of the claimant  filed  on 18. 6.19. Parties filed  their  written  submissions  to canvass  the application dated  10. 5.19.

We  will deal  with  each  application  individually  noting  that the  parties  argued orally  on the application  dated  10. 5.19 which  came on 4. 7.19.

On the  application  dated  10. 5.2019,  the  advocate  for the  applicant  submitted  that the respondent  should  start repaying  the sacco which was  still  owed  and  the claimant  being  the  guarantor who is still  repaying  the loan.

That   the respondent  should  take  up her  obligation  and the  claimant  sought  for the orders  as prayed  and  interim orders be enforced  since  the  respondent  was not   keen  in repaying  the loan  of Kshs.1. 8million  issued  to the respondent.

That   the claimant  is a mother  and the deduction  in her salary  to  repay  the  respondent’s  loan  at an amount  of Kshs.36,000/= per  month  will greatly  affect  her family.

That  the claimant  needed  the  money  to  take care  of her  responsibility  and  to run her home and  not to repay  the respondents  debts.

That there was no good will demonstrated by the respondent in the repayment of the loan.

In response,  the advocate  for the  respondent  proceeded under protest  in view  that they  alleged  to have filed  a judicial  review  matter  which  touched on the  conduct  of the tribunal  in this  matter.

That  there was  money  owed  by the respondent  to Mentor Sacco  and that  the respondent requested  the said  Mentor Sacco  to cease  debiting  the claimant.

That Mentor  Sacco  accepted  the  proposal  to the effect  that Kshs.49,000/= remittance  was  to begin  in June  and she  deposited  Kshs.25,000/- in May.

That  she  committed  herself  to settle  the matter  and  if the orders  as prayed  for if granted would  defect  the cause  of  justice.

That the  issue of security  was not  prayed  in the Notice  of Motion.

That  the claimant  cannot  claim  for Kshs.1million  since  the agreement  was between  the respondent  and Mentor Sacco.

That the prayer  for civil  arrest  was unreasonable  as it  would  interfere  with the  respondent’s  businesses.

That the  prayer  of  holding  the passport  was unreasonable,  premised  on  the  prayer  that  the respondent  was a flight risk  and  that her family  are not  residents  in Kenya.

That,  the respondent  was law abiding  citizen  and that  her daughter  was in school  in Kenya and that  the respondent  runs  various businesses  which  requires  foreign  travel  therefore  the claimant  should  not insist  on holding  the passport.

That  the application  should  be dismissed  since  the response  entered  agreement  with Mentor  Sacco who  is owed by the respondent.

In response, the claimant  submitted  that  there was  no evidence  of payment  and the agreement  between  the  respondent  and the Sacco was that  they would  cease debiting  the account  of the guarantor if the  respondent  paid  Kshs.49,000/= on a monthly  basis  without  fail.

That  the letter  presented  on the  agreement  was not  signed  therefore  its  genuineness  cannot  be confirmed.

That  the  claimant  was suffering   as a result  of the respondent  who should  take up her responsibility  in settling  the loan.

We  have  carefully  considered  the submissions of  the parties  and note  the the  passport  of the respondent  is still  held  by as security  as  ordered.

We  also note  that the  respondent  did not  file  any replying affidavit in the matter  despite  having  been  granted leave  on 4. 6.2019. Even  when  the matter  came up  for hearing  on 14. 6.2019 the respondent  had still  not filed  any  response but  instead  filed  a judicial  review  matter in  the High Court under  Notice of  Motion  application  dated  10. 5.19 seeking  for review  and setting  aside  of orders  issued  on 24. 4.2019.

However,  since the  parties oral submissions  in the matter,  we have considered  the same and  in the light  of the application to set aside  the orders  previously  issued  as per  the Notice of  Motion  dated  10. 5.19, we have  considered  the written submissions by both  parties.

The applicant/respondent has submitted that they had already deposited the passport at the tribunal under order 39 Rule 1. Provides for arrest and attachment before judgment.

That this  rule  is only applicable  if the court is satisfied  by  affidavit  or otherwise  that  the defendant  has left  or is about  to leave  the jurisdiction of the  court.

That there was no affidavit or formal application made for issuance of warrant of arrest.

That  the claimant  has failed to prove  that the  respondent intended  to abscond  or leave  the jurisdiction  of the  tribunal or  that she  had  disposed  of any  property   to furnishing  the respondent  cited  authorities  and averred  that the  respondent  had no intention  of leaving  the country  owing  to the fact  that  she had a child  in school.

That all these were not considered in the issuance of the orders of 8. 5.19 and 24. 4.2019.

That  further  the applicant  was not  offered  sufficient time  to retain  and consult  an advocate  and respond to the application  dated  4. 4.19.

That  the applicant  suffered  substantial  injustice  when  she was  taken to Kilimani police station.

That  the respondent  has been  negotiating  on payment plan  with  Mentor  Sacco  for the  repayment  of her  outstanding  loan  and since  the rights  of the respondents  were infringed  the orders  should  be set  aside.

The claimant  in response submitted  that the tribunal  has  jurisdiction in the matter  as vested  under  section  3A, Civil Procedure  Act,  and 78 (2) Cooperative  Society  Act.

That the orders issued were not final in nature as claimed by respondent.

That  the respondent  failed  to repay  her loan  of Kshs.1,498,600/= leaving   the claimant  being the  guarantor to repay  the same. That despite trying to reach the respondent to explain failure to service his own loans. The respondent did not give any response.

That it is clear that indeed the respondent defaulted and that the claimant was bearing the burden of repayment. That the respondent is a frequent traveler and given her track record of refusal to repay the loan, leaving the claimant stranded with the loan proves that the respondent is a flight risk on the orders were justly issued and served the ends of justice.

That the respondent has not demonstrated sufficient reason to set aside the orders as granted. That indeed the respondent was accorded an opportunity to be heard since she was served on 27/4/2019 and showed up on the tribunal on 8/5/2019 and was accorded more days to file a response.

That she admitted having defaulted and that she travelled out of the country often. That the orders issued were as a result of the respondent’s failure to service her loan. That she had not demonstrated any intention to repay the said loan despite the orders issued.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties in regard to the application dated 10/5/2019, seeking to set aside the orders. We note that the tribunal has jurisdiction under section 79 of Co-operative Societies Act.

Section  79 (1) (a)” the tribunal  may make  such  orders  for the purposes of securing the  attendance of  any person  at any  place; the  discovery  or production  of any  document  or ……….”

Section 79 (5) “the tribunal shall have unlimited geographical and pecuniary jurisdiction in matters of co-operative disputes”.

Rule  4 of Co-operative  Practice and Procedure Rules  2009, “the tribunal  shall have power  and discretion  to decide  all matters before  it with due  speed and dispatch  without  undue  regard  to technicalities  or  procedure”.

Rules  3 also  provides  that “Nothing  contained  in these  rules shall limit or  otherwise  affect  the  inherent  power  of the tribunal  to make  such orders  as may be  necessary  for the  ends  of justice or  to prevent  abuse  of  the process  of the tribunal.”

Hence, based on the above provisions of the law applicable in the circumstances, the tribunal was within its mandate to issue the orders.

The tribunal  gave  fair  opportunity  to the  respondent  to respond to the claim and  the  application  as evidenced  by the  records  indeed after issuance  of  the interim  orders  on  24. 4.19.

Hearing  interparties  was ordered  on 8. 5.19 when  the respondent  appeared  in  person  and sought  for an adjournment.

“I propose  to postpone  the matter  for  2 to 3  weeks  to give  my proposal  to release  the guarantor. I have  a ticket  which  expires  in August………”

on that day, the matter  was adjourned  and  leave was  granted with orders  for the respondent  to file  and serve  any  response  if need be to canvass  the Notice of  Motion dated  5. 4.2019 and to the  claim  within  14 days.

On 13. 5.19 the respondent filed   this current application under Certificate of Urgency and accordingly the respondent was heard and orders issued.

On  4. 6.19  the respondent  had still  not filed  any replying  affidavit  and the matter  was  ordered  to proceed  with  the application  dated  5. 4.2019 and  the advocate  on record  proceeded with the submissions in opposition of the said  application.  The  respondent  was therefore  granted  adequate  time  to present  pleadings and to consult  an advocate  and to respond to the  application  and the claim.

We therefore  find owing  to the fact   that the respondent  was duly  served,  appeared  before  the tribunal,  sought  for time which  time  was granted.  The respondent cannot thereafter purport not to have been granted an opportunity to present/defend the claim and application.

In considering  an application  for setting  aside  ex-parte  orders  it  has been established  in SHAH VS  MBOGO  and  ONGOM  VS  OWOTA  that  the court  must be  satisfied  about  one  of two things-

(a) “That  either  the defendant  was  not properly served  or

(b) The defendant failed to appear in court due to sufficient cause”.

In the present  case  the respondent  was duly served  and appeared  in person  and later  by advocate , hence  the conditions  for setting  the said  orders  have not been  satisfied.  In the circumstances we find that the application by the respondent dated 10. 5.19 has no merit and dismissed accordingly with costs.

On the  application  dated  5. 4.2019 we note  that we had  already  granted  orders  in terms  of prayer  2,6 (7) and 8 hence  the only  prayers  pending  for determination  are prayers no. 3. 4, 5.

In regard  to prayer  3,  we grant  the same  owing to the fact  that this  is a confirmation  of prayer 2 and  that  the respondent  had  confirmed  default  in repayment  of  her  loan  with Mentor  Sacco Limited.

For prayers 4, we find the same is not  applicable  in the  1st  instance  since  there is no judgment  or decree  on record.

In regard to prayer  5  the same  is not applicable  in the  first instance owing  to the  fact that  the matter  is still  pending hearing  and determination.

For prayer  6  since prayer 7 is  already  satisfied  as  an alternative  for prayer  6,  and the  passport  of the respondent is in the custody   of the tribunal, we  confirm  prayer  7 as an  alternative  for prayer  6  and which  gives effect  to prayer 6.

Costs in the cause.

This Ruling essentially dispenses the Notice of  Motion  dated  24. 10. 19.

Read and delivered in open court, this 7th of November 2019.

In the presence of:

Claimant:Miss Wangui for Applicant.We served as per affidavit of service filed on 6/11/19.

Respondent:None-appearance.

Court Assistant:Leweri and Buluma.

B. Kimemia           -        Chairman-signed

R. Mwambura       –      Member-signed.

P. Swanya             -        Member-signed.