Thomas Muthee Kianjai v Menya Services Sacco Limited [2021] KECPT 611 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.511OF 2019

THOMAS  MUTHEE  KIANJAI...........................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

MENYA  SERVICES  SACCO LIMITED.......................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Applicants  have filed  an Application  dated 13. 1.2021. seeking  orders:

(i) That  the Honorable  court be pleased  to certify  this application  of utmost  urgency  and to hear  it  ex-parte  and on a priority  basis  in the  1st  instance;

(ii) That the Honourable  court be  pleased  to issue  an order  for stay of  execution  of the judgment/decre, certificate  of costs  and all Consequential  Orders  herein pending  the interparties  hearing and determination  of this Application;

(iii) That the Honourable court  be pleased  to set aside  the judgment/decree, Certificate  of Costs  and all  Consequential  Orders  herein  and grant  the defendants  unconditional  leave to  defend; and

(iv) That costs  of the Application  be provided for.

2. The Application  is based on the  grounds  that:

a. The  Respondents  were never  served  with Summons  to  enter Appearance.

b. Respondent have  a stay  and arguable  defence  which  raises  very  weighty  triable  issues.

c. Plaintiff  will suffer  no prejudice  if the orders  are granted.

3. The Application  was supported  by the  Affidavit of Paul  Gitonga  Cosmas  Arachi sworn  on 13. 1.2021 stating  they were  never served with  Summons  to enter  Appearance.

4. The Claimant  opposed the  Application  and filed  a  Replying Affidavit  stating  the Application  is meant  to delay and  obstruct  the  course  of justice  as the Respondent/Applicant  had been  rightly served  instructed  Counsel  G.M.  Wanjohi to enter  Appearance  which  he did  via   Memorandum  of  Appearance  dated 23. 10. 2019 but did not  file a  Defence.

5. The  Applicant  in the further Affidavit  dated  24. 2.2021  and filed  on  2. 3.2021  acknowledged  service of  the summons  to enter  Appearance and instructed  G.M Wanjohi  to defend  their  course  but they  failed.

6. The parties were directed  to canvass   the Application  by way  of written  submissions. The Applicants  filed  their submissions  dated24. 2.2021on  2nd  March  2021.

The Claimant/Respondent submissions  were dated  9. 3.2021 and filed  on even date.

7. We  have considered the application  and submissions. The Respondent  was duly  filed  failed  to enter  Appearance, interlocutory  judgment was entered  against  them then  they awoke  from slumber  when a Notice  of Entry  of judgment  was served   on them.

The Respondent  contend  their  draft Defence  raises  weighty triable  issues.

Having  perused  the Defence  therein the same  is an admission  to the claim.

8. We have  considered  the Application  and the  submissions  herein. The issue  is one whether  Stay  of Execution should be  granted?

It is in  the interest  of justice  that this  Tribunal  exercises  its discretion  with caution not to abuse the court process and for justice  to be seen  to  be done.

Order  42  Rule  6 (2) Civil Procedure  Rule  lays down  the action  which a party  must establish  in order  for this  Tribunal  to order  stay of  execution.

The Rule provides:

“ No order  for stay  of execution  should be  made  under sub rule  (I) unless:

a. The court  is satisfied  that  substantial  loss may  result  to  the applicant  unless  the order  is made and  the Application  has been  made without  unreasonable  delay  and

b. Such security  as the court orders  for the due performance  of such  desirable  order as may  ultimately  be binding  on him   has been  given  by the Applicant.

c. The Question  then would  be, has the Applicant  proved the substantial  loss  he may undergo  if the  order is not made?

None  whatsoever, since  that the  Respondent  is servicing  a loan  and that  in a Special  General Meeting held  on  8. 1.2017 it was unanimously  agreed  that members  wishing  to withdraw  would  only do so  in the year  2022.

9. We find  the said  resolution  unreasonable  and not  fair  to the Claimant  or members of the Respondent.

10. Conclusion

a. We find  the Application  fails to  meet  the threshold  for grant  of stay  of  execution and  therefore dismissed  with costs.

b. The Judgment Creditor to proceed to the execution process.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 6TH   DAY OF MAY, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  6. 5.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson Signed  6. 5.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki    Member   Signed  6. 5.2021

Tribunal Clerk   Leweri

No appearance

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  6. 5.2021