Sylvia Naiputa John v Metropolitan National Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 600 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.298 OF 2020

SYLVIA NAIPUTA  JOHN...............................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

METROPOLITAN  NATIONAL  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED........ RESPONDENT

RULING

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

1. That  this  Application  be certified   as urgent  in the first  instance and the same be heard  on a priority basis.

2. That pending hearing  and determination  of this suit  the Respondent  be ordered  to give accounts  of the Claimant’s  contribution  and pay the sum as  due to date.

3. That the costs of this Application  be  provided for.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit sworn by  Claimant  on  even date (14. 9.2020).

The Respondent   has  belatedly  responded  to the Application  vide  the Replying  Affidavit  sworn by David  Muhoro  on 22. 12. 2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  17. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant   filed  his submissions  on 9. 10. 2020, while the Respondent did so on 27. 10. 2020.

Claimant’s Contention

It  is the Claimant’s  Contention  that despite  being the Respondent’s  member  since the year,  2007, the Respondent  has  refused and/or  declined  to account and  refund him his contributions. That he relinquished  his membership in the year,  2019. That he is  thus exposed  to heavy financial  loss.

Respondent’s Case

On its  part,  the Respondent  has opposed  the application on grounds  that the Claimant  has not served it with a formal  Notice  of withdrawal. That  it only became aware  of the Claimant’s  intention  to withdraw from  it  when  the Claimant filed a suit  similar  to this  one  at Milimani Commercial  Courts.

That  it operates  its accounts  diligently and  in accordance  with the customs  and practices of banking  and  thus cannot be engaged  in negligent and malicious  retention of members  funds  upon cessation of membership.

That as far as rendering  of accounts   is concerned,  the Respondent  contend that it was accounted  for the Claimant’s  contributions issuing her  with her statement  of account.

Issues  for determination

The Claimant’s  Application  has presented  the following issues for determination

a. Whether  the Claimant  has established  a proper  basis  to warrant  the grant  of an Order  of mandatory  injunction;

b. Who should  meet the costs  of  the Application?

Mandatory  injunction

The Orders  sought  by the Claimant  in the  instant Application  are in the nature  of a mandatory  injunction.  She wants  the  Respondent  to be compelled  to render  accounts  and pay her  contributions.  This being  the case,  what are  the conditions  for the grant  of a mandatory  injunction? We find  the answer  in the holding  of the court  in the case of  Kenya  Breweries  Limited  & Another  - vs-  Washington  Okeyo [2002]eKLR. In  the pertinent  part, the court sets out the tests  in the following  terms.

“ The test  whether to grant  a mandatory injunction  or not is correctly stated  in Vol.24, Haishunyi Laws  of England, 4th  Edition, page 948 which  reads:

A mandatory  injunction  can be granted  at an interlocutory  stage  as well as at the  hearing, but in the absence  of special  circumstances,  it  will not  normally  be granted.”

In the  case of  Local bail International Finance Limited –vs-  Agroeports  & others [1986] ALLER 9017-  the court  held thus:

“ A mandatory  injunction ought  not to  be granted  on an interlocutory  Application  in the absence  of special  circumstances,  and  then only in clear cases, either where the court   thought  the matter ought to be decided  at  once or where the injunction was directed  at a simple and summary which  could be  easily  remedied or where the  Defendant had  attempted to steal a match from  the plaintiff. Moreover,  before granting  a mandatory  interlocutory  injunction,  the court had to feel  a higher  degree of assurance that at the  trial,  it would  appear  that  the  injunction  had rightly been  granted,  that  being  a different  and a higher  standard  than was  required  for a prohibitory  injunction.”

The question  then is whether  there  exist  special  circumstances  in the present  Application  to warrant  the grant of the Orders  sought.  The Claimant  has couched prayer  2 of  the Application  in a manner that if  the Order  is granted,  then  nothing  will be left to be determined  in the main claim.  We have  perused  the prayers  in the  main  claim  and  note that  the  same are substantially  similar  to those  in the present  Application.

The prayers  in the  present  Application  can comfortably  be addressed during  pre-trials in the main claim. There is  nothing  urgent and  special in the Orders sought  in the instant  Application  so as to call for  intervention  at the interlocutory  stage.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we do not  find  merit  in the  Claimant’s  Application  dated  14. 9.2020 and hereby dismiss  it with costs in the cause. We  then give the following  directions in respect to the  main claim:

a. The Respondent  to file  and  serve a Response  to the claim  together  with witness  statements  and list and bundle  of documents  within 14 days herein;

b. The Claimant  to file and serve  a Reply  to Defence  as well as  supplementary  witness  statements  and documents  within  14 days  of service; and

c. Mention  for Pre-trials on  3. 3.2021.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 7TH   DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

HON. F. TERER    DEPUTY CHAIRMAN SIGNED  7. 1.2021

MR. P. GICHUKI   MEMBER    SIGNED  7. 1.2021

MR. B. AKUSALA    MEMBER   SIGNED 7. 1.2021

In the presence  of  Mr.  Wachakana for Claimant.

Mr. Mutemi holding for  Mr. Thimba  for Respondent

Court clerk  Maina

HON. F. TERER    DEPUTY CHAIRMAN SIGNED 7. 1.2021