Uchukuzi PSV Sacco Society Limited v Adrian Mumira [2021] KECPT 584 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.77 OF 2019

UCHUKUZI  PSV  SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED..........................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

ADRIAN  MUMIRA..................................................................... RESPONDENT

RULING

What is  before  us  for consideration  and determination  is the Respondent’s dated 9. 3.2020,  It seeks  for Orders  inter alia:

1. Spent;

2. That  that pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application  inter-parties  and pending  the hearing of this suit,  there be a temporary stay of  the judgment  and decree  issued in May,  2019 and all consequential  Orders thereof;

3. That  the Honourable  Court be pleased  to aside the judgment  and decree  issued on May, 2019 against the  Respondent/Applicant and the Respondent be allowed  to  defend  this suit;

4. That summons  to attend court  be issued  against the  Mathew Musotsi,  the alleged  process server for purposes  of cross-examination; and

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

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  following Affidavits sworn by the Respondent:

a. Supporting Affidavit sworn  on 9. 3.2020; and

b. Supplementary  Affidavit  sworn on  15. 9.2020.

The Claimant  has  opposed  the Application by filing a Replying  Affidavit  sworn by Albert  Karakaha on 6. 8.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  14. 9.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent filed  his written submissions  on  22. 9.2020 while  the Claimant  did so on 27. 10. 2020

Respondent’s  Contention

Vide  the instant  Application  the Respondents seeks for the  setting  aside  of the  default  judgment entered  on  25. 9.2019 on account  of the fact that  he was  never served  with summons  to enter  Appearance. That  as such,  he did  not deliberately abscond  court proceedings. That he has  a good defence  with triable  issues.

Claimant’s  Case

Vide  the Replying  affidavit  sworn  by Albert  Karakacha on  6. 8.2020,  the Claimant  contend  that the instant  Application  is  merely a ploy by the Respondent to protract  these proceedings. That  the Respondent  has not annexed  a  draft  Defence  to support the claim  that the same has triable issues.  That the Respondent  does not  deny being  indebted  to the Claimant.  That he was  properly  served  with  summons  to  enter Appearance as  evidenced  by the Affidavit  of serve sworn by  Mathew  Musotsi.

Respondent’s  Supplementary  Affidavit  sworn  on 5. 9.2020

Vide  this Affidavit, the  Respondent  reiterates  not being served  with  summons  to enter  Appearance  and  prays  for leave  to  cross- examine  the process server, Mathew  Musotsi.

Issues  for determination

The instant  Application  has presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Respondent  has established   a proper  basis  to warrant  the  setting  aside of  the default  judgment entered  on  27. 5.2019;

b. Who should  meet the  costs of  the Application?

Setting aside of default  Judgment

We have  jurisdiction  to set aside a  default  judgment  by dint  of Order  10 Rule  11 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. The Rule  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.”

In the case of  Patel – vs-  East  Africa Cargo  Service  Limited (1974)EA 75, the Court underscored this provision  in the following terms:

“ The main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties  and the  court will  not impose  conditions  on itself to fetter  the wide  discretion  given  to it  by the Rules.”

Before  we can exercise  our jurisdiction  under Order  10 Rule 11  above,  we firstly  have to ascertain  whether  the  default  judgment  is a regular  or irregular  one.  If the  Judgment  is an irregular  one,  then we will  set  it  aside  ex debito  justiciae.

This  was the holding  in the case of  K- Rep  Bank  Limited  -vs-  Segment  Distributors  Limited [2017] eKLR.

The court  in the  case of  Fidelity  Commercial Bank  Limited – vs-  Owen Amos  Ndungu  & Another, HCC.NO. 241/1998  gave  a distinction  between  a regular  and irregular judgment  as follows:

“ A distinction  is drawn  between  regular  and irregular  judgments.  Where summons  to  enter  Appearance  has  been served  and  there is  default  in entry  of Appearance  the ex parte  judgment  entered  in default is regular.  But where  the exparte judgment  sought  to be set  aside  is obtained  either because  there  was no proper  service  or any service  at all, of  the summons  to enter  Appearance, such  judgment  is  irregular  and  the affected Defendant  is entitled  to have  it set aside as of right”

Where  the  default  judgment  is  regular,  then  the Tribunal  has to  consider   if the draft  Defence filed with the Application raises triable issues. This was the holding in the case of James Kanyiita Nderitu & Another  - vs-  Marios  Philotas  Ghikes  & Another [2016]eKLR.  In  the pertinent  part,  the court  held thus:

“ In a regular  default  judgment,  the  Defendant  will have  been duly  served  with  summons  to enter  appearance,  but for one  reason  or another,  he failed  to enter appearance or to file  a Defence,  resulting  in default  judgment.  Such  a Defendant  is entitled  under Order  10 Rule  11  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  to move to  court to  set aside  the default  judgment  and to  grant  him leave  to  defend  the suit.  In such a scenario,  the court has unfettered  discretion  in determining  whether  or not to  set aside  the default judgment  and will  take into  account such  factors  as to the  reason  as for  the failure  of the Defendant  to file his  memorandum  of Appearance,  or  defence,  as the case may be, the length  of  time that has  elapsed  since the default  judgment  was entered; whether  the intended  Defence  raises  triable  issues,  the  respective  prejudice each party  is likely  to suffer whether  on the whole,  it is  in the  interests of  justice  to set  aside   the default judgment.”

From the foregoing,  it is apparent  that the Respondent  is  disputing  service of summons  to enter  Appearance.  He avers  that  he  was not served  with the same and  has sought  leave  to  cross –examine  the process server, Mr. Mathew  Musotsi.

On its part,  the Claimant  contend  that the Application  is not  merited  as the Respondent  has not  annexed  the draft Defence. Secondly,  that the Respondent  was duly served  with the summons to  enter Appearance as evidenced by the  Affidavit  of service  sworn by Mathew  Musotsi.

Order  19 Rule  2 of the Civil  Procedure  Rulesprovides with respect  to  swearing  of  an affidavit  thus:

“ Upon  any Application,  evidence  may be given  by Affidavit, but  the  court may at the  instance of either  party, Order  attendance for cross – examination  of the deponent.”

The  Claimant  has just  called upon  us to  invoke  our powers  under Order  19 Rule  2 above and summon  the deponent  of the undated Affidavit  filed  on  4. 4.2019. We have perused the said Affidavit.  The process server deponed that he personally served the Respondent  with summons  to enter Appearance  when he met him  en-route  Kisumu at   Kikuyu.  That the Respondent acknowledged service but refused  to sign  on his  counterpart  copy.

In terms  of  Order 19  Rule 2 above,  the only facility  available  for us to confirm  whether  or not  the Respondent  was duly served  with  summons  to enter Appearance  or not  is by way of  cross examination of the Deponent of the Affidavit of service in this case,  it is Mathew  Musotsi.

The question  that begs  is whether  we should  take the said route. Upon  taking into  account the circumstances of the present  Application  and the  matter at  hand, we ask  ourselves  whether it  will be in the interest  of  judicial  time  to take  a few months or so to ascertain  service  of a  pleading filed  in the year,  2014. We  say so  cognizant  of the  fact that  owing  to its nature, dates  are hard to come by  in this  Tribunal.

With this  observation  in mind,  we find  that it will be  in the interests  of justice for judicial  time to  be spared  towards considering  the merits  of the claim. This  is a claim  for recovery  of loan arrears and we do not  find any  prejudice  to be suffered  by the Claimant  if we allow  the Respondent  to file  a response  to the claim.

The totality  of the foregoing  is that we compromise  the instant  Application  in  the following terms.

a. The Default  Judgment  entered  on  27. 5.2019 is hereby  set aside;

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

c. The Claimant  to file and serve  a Reply  to the Response  as well as  supplementary  witness  statements  and documents  within  7  days  of service;

d. Mention  to confirm  compliance  and fixing  a hearing  date  on 3. 3.2021; and

e. No Orders as to costs.

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. 1.2021In the presence  of  Mr. Chimei for Respondent

Mr. Karanja holding brief  for Kimeu  for Claimant

Court clerk  Maina

HON. F. TERER    DEPUTY CHAIRMAN SIGNED  7. 1.2021