Stephen Chege Ng’ang’a v Stima Investment Co-operative Society Limited [2021] KECPT 557 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.234 OF 2020

STEPHEN  CHEGE  NG’ANG’A.............................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

STIMA  INVESTMENT CO-OPERATIVE  SOCIETY LIMITED.................RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 14. 9.2020,  the Respondent has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders  inter alia:

a. That  this  Application  be certified  urgent and service  thereof be dispensed  with  in the first instance;

b. That pending  the hearing and determination  of the Application  herein, an order  does issue staying  the ex-parte  judgment  of this Tribunal  delivered and  issued  on 25th  August,  2020;

c. That the  ex-parte  judgment  of this Tribunal  delivered  and issued  on 25th  August,  2020,  be set aside  and the Applicant  be granted  leave to file  and serve  its Response to the  Respondent’s Statement  of claim  dated 28. 7.2020; and

d. Costs be in the cause.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn  by Viola  Odhiambo  on  14. 9.2020. The Claimant has  opposed  the Application  vide the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by himself  on 29. 9.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  16. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent  filed  its submissions  on  21. 10. 2020 while the Claimant  did so on 3. 11. 2020.

Respondent’s Case

It is  the Respondent’s contention  that judgment  in this matter  was entered  in default  whilst  it was  trying  to enter Appearance  through  the online portal.  That once  it instructed  its advocates to file the necessary  documents on  20. 8.2020 the said  firm of  Advocates  immediately  applied  to link the case with judiciary  e-filing portal.  That there was delay  in linking the case to the portal thus making it impossible for   it to  file a memorandum  of Appearance.

That  the case  was subsequently  linked  on 26. 8.2020  when  it filed a memorandum of Appearance on8. 9.2020.

That unbeknown to it, the Claimant  had obtained  judgment in default  on  25. 8.2020. That  the delay  in filing  memorandum  of Appearance  were not  deliberate.  That it  has a good  defence  which  deserves  to be  heard and determined  on merit.

Claimant’s  Case

The Claimant  has opposed  the Application  on grounds  that the draft  defence  does not raise any triable  issue. That he invested  Kshs.3,132,140/= for the purchase  of land and that the Respondent has  failed to avail  the said  properties. That  it is thus not  in dispute   that the Respondent  took  his money.

Issues  for determination

The Respondent’s Application  has raised  the following  issues for  determination:

a. Whether  the Respondent  has established  a proper basis  for the setting  aside of  the default  judgment entered  on  25. 8.2020.

b. What Orders  are available  in  the circumstances.

Setting aside  of default  judgment

Order  10 Rule  11 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules,  in the  legal  framework  for setting  aside  of a default  judgment. It  provides thus:

“ Where  judgment  has been  entered under  this Order,  the Court  may set  aside  or vary such judgment  and any consequential  decree  or Order  upon  such terms  as are just”

From  this provision, it is manifest that the  power  of a court  to set  aside  a default  judgment  is a discretionary  one. The court  of Appeal  in the case of  Tushike Construction  Company  Limited – vs-  Harambee  Co-operative  Society  Limited [2019] eKLR. Had  the following  to say about  discretion.

“ We may sample  the principles  Applicable  under the rule from  the Court’s  decision  in the Pithon  Waweru  Maina case [Supra], thus:

“ a. Firstly, there  are no limits  or  restrictions  on the judge’s  discretion except  that, if   he does  vary  the judgment  he does so on  such terms  as may be  just.....The  main  concern  of the Court is to do justice to the parties,  and the court will not  impose  on  itself  to fetter  the wide discretion  given  it by  the rules.  (b) Secondly,  this discretion  is intended  so  to be exercised  to  avoid  injustice or hardship resulting  from accident,  inadvertence, or  excusable  mistake  or error, ...”

Taking  cue from  the decision  of this court above  especially  on the aspect  of discretion,  we have looked  at the circumstances  of the present  case and  note that  the claim was instituted  on  4. 8.2020. The Claimant  requested  for  judgment  on 24. 8.2020. Summons  to enter  Appearance was  served upon  the Respondent  on  6. 8.2020. The Respondent  submitted  and paid for memorandum  of Appearance  on  26. 8.2020. The Said memorandum  was received  on  8. 9.2020.

It follows  therefore that  in terms of  the time limited  in the summons  to enter Appearance, it was to do  so on  or before  21. 8.2020.  It submitted  the same  on  26. 8.2020. This  is a period  of 5 days  after  the lapse  of  the said 15 days. Without  looking  at the merit  or otherwise of  the draft  defence,  we exercise our discretion  and set aside  the default  judgment  purely on the explanation  by the  Respondent  that it encountered  challenges  in linking  the case  to the  e- filing  portal.  This is an  occurrence  which cannot  be attributed  to the Respondent.  By  entering  Appearance  in  good time,  the Respondent  has demonstrated  seriousness  in defending  the claim.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that  we find merit in the  Respondent’s  Application  dated  14. 9.2020 and hereby  allow it based  on  the  following  terms.

a. The default  judgment  entered  on  25. 8.2020 is hereby   set aside allowed  with costs  in the cause.

b. The Respondent  is granted  leave  of  14 days  to file and  serve  a statement  of Response  as well as  witness  statement  and  list and bundle  of documents.

c. The Claimant  to file  a Reply to the Response  as well as  Supplementary  list and bundle  of  documents  ( if need be)  within  14 days  of service.

d. Mention  for Pre- trials  on  16. 3.2021.

Ruling  signed,  dated and  delivered virtually  this  28th  day of January, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                 Chairperson                signed       28. 1.2021

Mr. B. Akusala                     Member                       Signed      28. 1.2021

Mr. R. Mwambura                Member                       Signed      28. 1.2021

Mbuthia  Advocate  for Claimant/ Respondent: Present

No appearance  for Respondent/ Judgment Debtor/Applicant:

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                signed       28. 1.2021

Mr. Mbuthia advocate: There  is no judgment  dated 25. 8.2020.

Order -  The Respondent  to file for review  or any  other action if need be.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                signed       28. 1.2021