Times U Savings & Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Jackson Kithinji Mungania [2019] KECPT 59 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 306 OF 2017

TIMES U SAVINGS &CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY LIMITED........................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

JACKSON KITHINJI MUNGANIA..........RESPONDENT

RULING

This matter for determination is a Notice of Motion dated 24. 5.2017 seeking the following order:

1. Spent

2. Spent

3. That ,this  Honorable Court  be pleased  to grant  a stay of  execution  for the judgment  entered  on 19th May  2017 and subsequent orders  made pursuant  thereto  pending  the  hearing  and determination  of the suit.

4. That,this Honorable  Court be pleased  to set aside  its judgment  entered  19th May  2017 and subsequent orders made pursuant  thereto pending  the hearing  and determination  of this suit.

5. That,costs of this application be provided for.

The Application is based on the grounds and the face of the application and the affidavit of the Respondent. The same  is opposed  by the Replying  Affidavit  of the claimant filed  on 27. 6.2017. The Respondent  filed  a Supplementary  Affidavit  on the 18. 6.2019.

The parties filed written submissions in the dispensation of the said  application. Both parties filed their submissions on  27. 6.2019.

The Applicant  submitted that they  were served  with  the summons  to enter appearance and he sent  a third party to file  his  memorandum  to enter  appearance   on 10. 5.2017, but the said  3rd  party  neither  filed  nor informed  the Respondent .

That  the said  3rd  party  file  the memorandum  to  enter  appearance  on 22. 5.2017 at this  time  the exparte  judgment  had already  been entered.

The Applicant  avers that there was  an inadvertent  mistake  to file  the memo to enter appearance  as well  as to  file  a  defence  within  the prescribed  period.

That  the Applicant  seeks  setting  aside the interlocutory  judgment  and subsequent orders based  on the said  inadvertence.

That under  order  10 Rule  11, the Tribunal  is empowered  to set aside  exparte  judgment  on terms  that are  just.

That  these powers  are discretionary,  and failing  to allow  the  application  will amount  to a hindrance to  the Applicant’s Constitutional  and Statutory  Rights.

That  the Applicant  has a good  and meritorious  defence   which  raises triable  issues.

That the Applicant  has come to court  within  a reasonable  time  and without  undue  delay .

That  no prejudice  will be  suffered  by the claimant  that cannot  be settled  by way of  costs.

The Respondent/Claimant submitted that  the application  should  not be allowed  because  the Respondent  was duly  served  with the  summons  to enter  appearance  and failed  to put  in the response  within the  prescribed  time.

That  at the time  of entry  of judgment  in default , the  respondent  had not  entered  appearance  or filed  a defence.

That the  Respondent  after filing  this application  under certificate  of urgency he was  granted temporary  stay  and directed  to set  down  the application  for hearing.

That the  Respondent  has not  however  taken  any steps  to prosecute  the application  from the  date  it was filed on  24. 5.2017 and two years have  lapsed.

That  the Applicant  has been  indolent  and using the Tribunal  to escape  his obligations  as a Judgment  Debtor.

That  it is  the duty of the  Applicant  to take steps  to progress  his application  and with the lapse  of  over 2  years  the applicant  has run  contrary  to the overriding objectives as  stipulates section  1A, 1B and 3A  of the  Civil Procedure Act.

That  the Respondent  has  not proved that  he  has sufficient   grounds’ to warrant  the setting  aside  of the  judgment,  this is  because he does not  deny that  he owed  the claimant  money  but  rather  that the claimant  ought  to have  deducted   the  said money owed  from his  savings.  And further  that he  should  be allowed  to pay  the amount  owed  in monthly instalments. The  respondent  therefore  prays  for the application  to be  dismissed  with costs.

We have  carefully  considered  the submissions by  the parties, we  note that   this suit  was filed  on 11. 4.2017, memorandum of  appearance  was filed  on 22. 5.2017 request  for judgment  was filed  on 19. 5.2019 and judgment  entered  accordingly. Applicant  filed  is application on 24. 5.2017 and interim  orders  granted on  29. 5.2017.  Since then  the applicant  has never  prosecuted  the said application  until  28. 5.2019 when the  applicant  moved the  Tribunal  for directions.

We note the  substance  of the claim  arises  from  the  loan  obtained by  the respondent  as pleaded  in the statement  of claim paragraph  7 and/or  failed, party serviced   the  loan. This  fact has  not been disputed  in the  draft  defence.

This  application  was brought  under  certificate of urgency and interim orders  obtained, however it has  been over  2 years since  the same  was prosecuted. We have  noted  the provisions of section  1A,1B and  3A of Civil Procedure Act and Rule  4 of the Cooperative Tribunal  practice Rules ; which  provide for  expeditious  disposal in the circumstances, the applicant has been indolent enjoying interim orders for stay of execution for over 2 years.  The applicant avers that no prejudice will be occasioned to the claimant if their application is granted. However, we note that failure to prosecute, the application has caused great delay in the matter.

We have  also  noted the  contents  of the draft  defence  and  that  the same  has not  demonstrated  any sufficient  grounds to stay  execution  and or set aside the judgment.  We note  that the  said defence  does not raise  any triable  issues  since  there is  no express  denial  of the  amount  owed.  The draft  defence  proposes  the modes of payment  and  the suggestion  that the  claimant  should  offset  the amount from  the savings  of  the respondent in the  circumstances therefore  we find  that the draft  has not  raised  any triable  issues.

We note that the  respondent  was duly  served  and  alleges failure  to file  a memorandum of  appearance  and defence  within  time due to  the error/omission  of a third  party,  which  third party  did not  swear  any affidavit on the said  allegations.

The  respondent  also  alleges  to have  been  unwell  hence  the reason  why  he sent  the  3rd party  but  no evidence  or  documents showing  the nature of  illness.

The two allegations/grounds raised by  the respondent  do not  demonstrate  any  sufficient  cause to  set aside  the interlocutory  judgment.

In light  of the above  we find  that no  reasonable  cause  has been shown for  the defendants failure  to enter  an appearance within   the stipulated time. We also  find that  the respondent has not  demonstrated  sufficient  grounds or merits  to our satisfaction  that there  was a good  defence  as  per  the draft  defence filed.  In the circumstances we find that the application has no merits and its prosecution has been unduly delayed.

We therefore dismiss the application dated 24. 5.2017 with costs.

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

In the presence of:

Claimant:Mrs.Simiyu for Claimant/Respondent.

Respondent:Miss Kirui holding brief for Kabathi for Applicant.

Court Assistant:Leweri and Buluma.

B.Kimemia      -     Chairman-signed.

R.Mwambura    –     Member-signed.

P.Swanya         -      Member-signed.