Simon Karangu v Mwiki Psv Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 543 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.526 OF 2018

SIMON  KARANGU..................................................................................... CLAIMANT

VERSUS

MWIKI  PSV  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED.......................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The  Application before court  is one dated  2. 11. 2018 asking court for  orders:

(i) This application  be certified  as extremely urgent  and be heard forthwith  and service  be dispensed  of in the first  instance.

(ii) Pending  the determination  of this application  an order  do issue  staying  the Respondent’s decision  made on  31. 10. 2018 to suspend  the applicant  from its  membership forthwith.

(iii) Pending  the determination  of this suit an order  do issue  staying  the Respondent’s  decision  made on  31. 10. 18 to suspend  the applicant  from its  membership forthwith.

(iv) Pending  the hearing  and determination  of this application  the respondent, its  agents, servant and/or  employees be restrained  and prevented  by an order  of this  Honourable  court from  harassing,  preventing  or interfering  in any  way whatsoever  with  the applicant’s matatu business  pertaining  to motor vehicles registration  numbers  KBS 778D, KBS 338Y,KBQ 177P,KBW 918K, KBW 956Z,KCA 354K, KCB 185G,KCB 069A,KCG 987K,KCG 511M,KCG 661Q and  KCF 163K from  conducting  the business  along the PSV Routes  of  operation  known as  Route  No. 17B( Mwiki to Nairobi Bus station  and back via  Thika  Superhighway,) Routes  No. 17C (Mwiki to Nairobi Commercial  Terminus  through  Thika  Superhighway and Muranga  road  and back) and  other  routes  as designated  by the Respondent  and from using  all  the stages  allocated  to the Respondent  that the applicant  is entitled  to conduct  his matatu  business  in by  virtue  of being  a member  of the Respondent  Co-operative /Sacco and a matatu  business  owner  generally.

(v) Pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit  the respondent, its  agents, servant and/or  employees be restrained  and prevented  by an order  of this  Honourable  court from  harassing,  preventing  or interfering  in any  way whatsoever  with  the applicant’s matatu business  pertaining  to motor vehicles registration  numbers  KBS 778D, KBS 338Y,KBQ 177P,KBW 918K, KBW 956Z,KCA 354K, KCB 185G,KCB 069A,KCG 987K,KCG 511M,KCG 661Q and  KCF 163K from  conducting  the business  along the PSV Routes  of  operation  known as  Route  No. 17B( Mwiki to Nairobi Bus station  and back via  Thika  Superhighway,) Routes  No. 17C (Mwiki to Nairobi Commercial  Terminus  through  Thika  Superhighway and Muranga  road  and back) and  other  routes  as designated  by the Respondent  and from using  all  the stages  allocated  to the Respondent  that the Applicant  is entitled  to conduct  his matatu  business  in by  virtue  of being  a member  of the Respondent  Co-operative /Sacco and a matatu  business  owner  generally.

(vi) Pending  the hearing  and determination  of this application  the applicant  be allowed  to enjoy all  his full  rights  and benefits  as entitled  to by virtue  of being  a member  of the Respondent’s  Sacco.

(vii) Pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit the applicant  be allowed  to enjoy  all his  full rights  and benefits  as entitled  to by virtue  of being  a member  of the Respondent’s  Sacco.

(viii) That the  office commanding  station (OCS) Central  Police  Station  Nairobi  and the National  Transport  and safety  authority (NTSA) do ensure  compliance  of the orders  given herein.

(ix) Costs  of this Application.

2. The Affidavit  is supported by  Affidavit  of  Simon  Karangu  sworn  on  2. 11. 2018 to which  he states  he is  a  member  of the Respondent  Sacco  with  12  motor vehicles plying  the route.  He claims  to have  been illegally and unprocedurally  been barred  from  operating  his  motor  vehicles thus not generating  any  income and   causing  financial  hardship in loan  repayments.

3.  The Application  was  opposed  by the Respondent by  them  filing  grounds  of opposition  dated 29. 1.2020.

Stating  the applicant  has failed/refused  to exhaust  the Respondent  Internal  Dispute Resolution  Mechanism as per clause  93  of Respondent  By- law.

There  are other similar  suits  filed  by claimant  in our courts.

The Application  should  fail  on the principle of material  non-Disclosure  of  the relevant  facts.

4. The Application  dated  2. 11. 2018  was directed  to proceed  by way  of written  submissions.  The Claimant/ applicant  filed  their submissions  dated 10. 12. 2020 on  15. 12. 2020.

The Respondent despite  several  mention  dates  17. 12. 2021, 2. 2.2021  and  23. 3.2021 failed  to file  their  written submissions.

5. The Applicant  has demonstrated   he would  suffer  loss and  financial constraints  if the  Respondents  actions  of  suspension are not halted  because  due process was not  followed.

The letter  marked  SMK 1 dated  31st  October  2018 evidences  his  suspension pegging  it on the  Claimant  handing over Sacco documents.

We  take it  with great  stride that  the Claimant  is being  arm twisted  to hand over  documents  to enable  him continue  being a member of the  Respondent.

6.  The Respondent  on the  other hand in response  in their  grounds  of opposition  pine  the Claimant  had not  exhausted  the Internal  Dispute  Resolution  Mechanism as per  clause  93  of the Respondent By –laws  (Constitution)which reads:

if  any dispute concerning  the business  of the society arises:

(a)  Among members, past members and persons  claiming  through  members, past members  and deceased  members; or

(b) Between  members, past members  or  deceased  members,  and the society , its committee  or  any  officer  of the society; or

(c) Between  the society  and any other  co-operative  society,  which cannot  be determined  by the Management  Committee  or General  Meeting, it shall  be referred  to the Tribunal. Appeals  shall be  taken  to the High Court.

The Management  Committee  is to deal  with the  issue. We find  it ironic  the same  management  committee  that  claimant  is to deal  with is the same  one that  was arm twisting  him.

Question- where  could  the claimant  find recourse  if not  the Tribunal  noting  the Respondents had closed  all available  avenues  and given  conditions  to the Claimant?

7. On the  2nd  issue  of the Respondent  grounds  of opposition  is that  of failure  of material  non- Disclosure  of relevant  facts   to the case.

The material  non-disclosure  has not  been made  known  to the Tribunal  and how  it  affects the  suit before  the  Tribunal mention  is only made  that  the claimant was  voted  out  of members  in  the Respondent’s Annual General Meeting. Being voted  out as  an  official  does not  mean one  ought  to  be removed  from  being  a member of the Respondent Sacco.

8. Issues  arising are:

One : whether  the Claimant  was unfairly  suspended  from the Respondent Sacco?

Two:  whether  the claimant  meets the  threshold  of being  granted  an interlocutory  reliefs?

9. Issue one:

Whether  the Claimant  was unfairly  suspended  from the Respondent Sacco?

The Respondent  suspended  the claimant  via a letter  dated  31st  October  2018.

We  perceive  the  same  to be unfair  because  of the conditions  given  therein.. suspend  until  you handover  documents.

This  is more of  a threat and thus  we are left  to  wonder  if the Claimant  infact  received  a fair  hearing  if at all  from the Respondents.

We therefore find  the  suspension  unfair and not having  followed  due process  of the law.

10. Issue two:

Whether  the claimant  meets the  threshold  of being  granted  an interlocutory  reliefs?

The Claimant  seeks for  injunctive orders. The threshold  for  injunction  is furiously  laid out  in Giella  -vs-  Cassman  Brown  and Company  Limited  [1973]EA 358.

The conditions  that must  be met are:-

a. Applicant  must show  a prima facie  probability  of success.

b. Applicant  must demonstrate  they stand to suffer  irreparable  loss  that would not  adequately  be compensated  by an award  of damages.

c. Balance  of  probability.

11. The Claimant /Applicant  has proved  probability  of  success  noting  his suspension  is questionable  and  the Respondents  do not  deny the  say.

12. On the issue of  irreparable  loss, the Claimant  has attached  loan repayment schedules  showing his  financial  obligations  in the different  financial  institutions. He has invested  in the transport  industry and it would be unfair  to him if  the suspension  went through  unfairly.

He would indeed  suffer  loss and  financial  damage which would  make him  greatly  prejudiced.

13. On a balance of  probability  Applicant  has proven  their case.

(x) To  this the end,

(i) The Application  is allowed  as prayed.

(ii) Pending  the determination  of this suit an order  is hereby granted staying  the Respondent’s  decision  made on  31. 10. 18 to suspend  the applicant  from its  membership forthwith

(iii) Pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit  the Respondent, its  agents, servant and/or  employees are restrained  and prevented  by an order  of this  Honourable  court from  harassing,  preventing  or interfering  in any  way whatsoever  with  the applicant’s matatu business  pertaining  to motor vehicles registration  numbers  KBS 778D, KBS 338Y,KBQ 177P,KBW 918K, KBW 956Z,KCA 354K, KCB 185G,KCB 069A,KCG 987K,KCG 511M,KCG 661Q and  KCF 163K from  conducting  the business  along the PSV Routes  of  operation  known as  Route  No. 17B( Mwiki to Nairobi Bus station  and back via  Thika  Superhighway,) Routes  No. 17C (Mwiki to Nairobi Commercial  Terminus  through  Thika  Superhighway and Muranga  road  and back) and  other  routes  as designated  by the Respondent  and from using  all  the stages  allocated  to the Respondent  that the applicant  is entitled  to conduct  his matatu  business  in by  virtue  of being  a member  of the Respondent  Co-operative /Sacco and a matatu  business  owner  generally.

Parties  to file and serve  witness statement  and documents  within  30 days  herein.

Mention  for Pre- trial for directions on 28. 7.2021.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 27thday of May, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  27. 5.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson Signed  27. 5.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki    Member   Signed  27. 5.2021

Tribunal Clerk   Leweri

Miss Wangui  for the Claimant: Present

No appearance  for Respondent

Notice  to issue for Pre-trial  mention on  28. 7.2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  27. 5.2021