Wilson Gitau Kabata v City Hoppa Sacco, Speed Capital Limited & National Transport and Safety Authority ; Phrasia Wanjiru Kariuki(Intended Interested Party/Applicant) [2020] KECPT 115 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI TRIBUNAL CASE NO.  386  OF 2019

WILSON  GITAU  KABATA...................................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

CITY  HOPPA SACCO.................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT

SPEED CAPITAL LIMITED.......................................................................2ND RESPONDENT

NATIONAL  TRANSPORT  AND SAFETY AUTHORITY ..................3RD  RESPONDENT

PHRASIA  WANJIRU  KARIUKI.........INTENDED  INTERESTED  PARTY/APPLICANT

RULING

What is  coming up  for  consideration  and  determination  is the Intended Interested  Party’s Application   dated  23. 7.2019. It seeks,  in the main,  the following Orders:-

a. That  leave be granted  to the Intended  Interested  Party  to be enjoined  as  a party  to the suit;

b. That the Tribunal  be pleased  to issue  an order  further proceedings  in the matter pending the hearing  and determination  of CM.CC.NO. 5039/2017; and

c. Costs .

The Application  is predicated  on the grounds  on its face and the Supporting  Affidavit of the Proposed  Interested  Party sworn  on  23. 7.2019.

The Claimant  has opposed  the Application  by filing a Replying  Affidavit  sworn  by  himself  on 30. 9.2019.

Proposed  Interested  Party’s  Case

Vide  this Application, the Proposed  Interested  Party contend  that the orders  sought  by the Claimant in this claim adversely affects  her  and that  it will only  be fair  if she is granted  an  opportunity  to participate  in the proceedings.

That she is the co-registered  owner  of motor vehicle  registration  number  KCG  067R,  Nissan  Diesel. That  she took  a loan with  the  2nd  Defendant  to purchase  it. That  the suit  Motor vehicle  is the subject  matter of  proceedings  in CMCC NO. 5039 OF  2017.

That  there exist  orders  in CMCC NO. 5039 OF 2017  prohibiting  the sale of the suit Motor Vehicle. That  the said  orders  were issued  on  7. 12. 18.

That despite  existence  of the said orders, the  2nd  Respondent proceeded  to sell  the motor vehicle.

That the said  suit is  yet to  be heard  and determined. That  she thus prays  to be enjoined  in the proceedings so as to  assist  the Tribunal  arrive  at a  just  finding.

Claimant’s  Case

Vide  his Replying  Affidavit  sworn  on 30. 9.2019, the  Claimant  contend  that he is  the legitimate owner  of the suit motor vehicle. That  he  bought  the  said vehicle  at a Public  Auction. That  prior  to its purchase,  there were  no stay  orders.

That if  there  exist  issues  between  the proposed  Interested Party and  the 2nd Respondent,  then the  same should  be addressed  through  civil Proceedings.

1st – 3rd Respondents   Responses

Though  served  with the instant  Application,  the 1st – 3rd  Respondents have  not made any  representations.

Disposal  of the Application

Vide  the directions  given  on  1. 10. 2019,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of written  submissions.  The Proposed  Interested  Party  filed hers on 7. 11. 2019 while  the Claimant  did so  on  10. 10. 2019.

Issues  for determination

We  have  framed  the following  issues  for determination:-

a. Whether  the Tribunal  has Jurisdiction  to enjoin  the Proposed  Interested  Party as a party to  these  proceedings; and

b. Who should meet  the costs  of the Application?

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction  is everything.  Without  it, a court  has no power  to make  one more step. This was  the holding  in  locus  classicus case  of  Owners  of the motor vessel “Lillian   S Versus  Caltex  & Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLRI.In the  pertinent part,  the court further  held thus;

“……Where  a court  has no  jurisdiction  there would be  no basis  for  a continuation  of proceedings  pending  other evidence. A Court  of  law downs  its tools in respect  of the matter  before  it  the moment  it holds  the  opinion  that it  is  without jurisdiction.”

Section  76  of the Co-operative Societies  Act (Cap 490) Laws of  Kenya delineates the  jurisdiction  of this Tribunal.

Section  76  (1) a-c thereof  provides  thus;

“76(1)  if any dispute  concerning  the business  of a Co-operative  Society  arises-

a. Among members, past members  and persons  claiming  through  members, past members  and deceased  members; or

b. Between  members, past members  or deceased  members, and  the society, its  Committee  or any officer  of the society; or

c. Between  the Society  and any other  Co-operative  Society,

It  shall  be referred  to the Tribunal”

Flowing  from  the foregoing,  the question  arises as to  whether   the issue and/or  dispute  presented  by  the Instant  Application  concerns  the “business” of  a Co-operative  Society.

The gist  of the Proposed  Interested  Party’s  Application  is that the matters  raised  in the instant suit  adversely  affect her. That  she is the owner  of the suit  motor  vehicle  which the  2nd  Respondent  sold it  out to the Claimant.  Subsequent  to the said  sale,  she has filed a suit  at  the Chief Magistrates Court  impugning  the alleged  sale.

From our  appreciation  of  the facts  raised  by the Application,  the Proposed  Interested  Party’s  case  revolve  around  ownership of  the said  motor vehicle.

The claim  does not  in any  way  concern  the business  of the 1st  Respondent.  Much as  she may have  a legitimate  claim  against the claimant,  we respectfully  find that  this is not  the  appropriate  forum  to do so. Section  76  (1) of the Co-operative  Societies  Act,  precludes us from  wading  into  matters  that  does not  touch  on  our  jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we find  that  we do  not  have jurisdiction to  entertain  the Application  and hereby  dismiss  it with  no orders  as to costs.

Ruling  read,  dated  and signed  delivered  in line with   the directions  issued  by the Hon.  The Chief Justice on  15. 3.2020, this 9thday of April, 2020.

Prepared by Hon. B.Kimemia Chairman, Hon. F. Terer Deputy Chairman, P. Gichuki Member.

With consent  of the parties, the  final orders  to be delivered  by email, as accordance  to the prevailing  measures  during  the covid-19.

Hon. B. Kimemia  Chairman           Signed      9. 4.2020

Hon. F. Terer       Deputy Chairman      Signed      9. 4.2020

P. Gichuki             Member                  Signed      9. 4.2020