REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 242 OF 2019

CHARLES MURIMI MWENJE.................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

FORTUNE SACCO LIMITED..............RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter for determination is a Notice of Motion application dated  8.5.2019 seeking  the following  orders:-

1. That this honorable court be pleased to certify this application as urgent and dispense with its service  in the first  instance.

2. That this honorable  court be  pleased  to  order  suspension  of the claimant  on 6^th May 2019 from being  director of the Respondent  Sacco  be stayed  pending  the hearing  and  determination  of this application interparties.

3. That this  honorable  court be pleased  to order notice  to call  for an annual  general meeting  to ratify  the suspension  of the claimant  be stayed  pending  the hearing and determination  for this application  interparties.

4. That this honorable  court be pleased  to order  notice  for elections  to replace  the claimants as a director  of the Sacco society  be stayed  pending  hearing  and determination  for this application interparties.

5. That this  honorable  court be pleased  to order  the suspension  of the  claimant  on 6^th May 2019 as a director  of the respondent  Sacco be stayed  pending   the hearing and determination  of the main  claim.

6. That this honorable  court be pleased  to order  notice  to call for  an annual  general meeting  to ratify  the suspension  of the claimant  be stayed  pending  the hearing and  determination  of the main claim.

7. That this  honorable  court be pleased to order  notice  for elections in the  annual general  meeting  to replace  the claimant  as a director  of the sacco society  be stayed  pending  the hearing  and determination  of the main  claim.

8. That costs  of the application be provided for.

Based  on the grounds  on the face of the application  and supported  by the affidavit  of CHARLES  MURIMI MWENJE filed  on 9.5.2019. The same  is opposed  by the replying  affidavit  of AMOS  KIMOTHO  filed  on  25.5.2019 and a further  supplementary  affidavit  filed on 28.8.2018. The  application  was canvassed  by way  of written  submissions.

The applicant filed  their  submission on 1.10.2019 while  the respondents filed  their submissions on  14.10.2019. we also  note that  there is  another application  filed  on  11.6.19 which  seeks for committal of the  chairman  of the board  of directors  one DICKSON  KARAI  and  CEO AMOS  NJERU  to be committed  to civil  jail  for contempt  of court  orders.

We wish  to determine  both applications  together  noting that  the  2^nd  application  arises from  interim orders  issued  on the  1^st  application  the said  orders  dated  9.5.2019 of which  the respondent  is alleged  to be  in contempt  of ……

The  application  dated  8.5.2019,  the parties  opted  not to  partially submit  in the said  application  however we issue the ruling  based  on the affidavits  on record and  thereafter  determine  the second  application  based  on  the  1^st  application  and the submissions  of the parties.  The applicant  sought  orders  to stay  the suspension  of the claimant  on 6.5.2019 and to stay  the annual general meeting  to ratify  the said suspension.

The grounds given  are that  the claimant  was suspended verbally  on allegation  that he was  inciting  other  sub delegates  against  one RUFUS KAMAU  and by  questioning  how he became  a director  yet he did not  hold  an “O” level  certificate education.

That  the applicant  was the one  who had incited  this fellow  delegates  to write  the said letter dated  8.4.2019.  In the supporting affidavit  of the claimant, he stated  there was  a director’s meeting  on or about  the 6^th  May  2019 which  alleged that the  claimant  and one  WILFRED  MWANGI  had incited  other delegates against  the said  RUFUS  KAMAU.

In response  we note  that the  replying  affidavit  and the supplementary  affidavit  of AMOS  KIMOTHO one filed specifically  for the  application  dated  10.6.19 but have  also addressed   the issues  arising  in the application  dated  8.5.2019 and presume  therefore  the  respondents  opted  not  to specifically  file a  replying affidavit  for  the application  dated  8.5.2019.

However,  since  we are considering both  application  together  for purpose  of saving time  in litigation,  we have  noted  the replying  affidavit that  address the issues raised  in the application  dated  8.5.2019. The respondent  avers  that the  claimant  incited  the delegates into  writing  a damaging  letter  addressed  to the  commissioner  of cooperatives.

That  they raised issues  in the letter  which  had been  conclusively  addressed  in the annual general meeting  of 27.4.18. Therefore  the said  letter was an  act of sabotage.

That  on investigations  they  established  that  the claimant  together  with one  WILFRED KIBAKI had  incited  the delegates  into signing   the said  memorandum /letter  and  they were  to face  disciplinary  proceedings.

That  the said  WILFRED  opted  to resign  and the claimant  was advised  that he  would  be required  to defend  himself  during the next  board meeting  to be  held  on  6.5.19.

That there  was  no suspension on the  6.5.2019 and no  annual general  meeting  was called  to suspend  the claimant  as a director  and  that  no evidence  has  been  led to  proof  this allegations.

That  there being  no suspension  there  was also  no notice  issued  for directions  to replace  the claimant.

That  the claimant  therefore  misled  the tribunal  with  allegation  of suspension  when  in fact  disciplinary  proceedings  had not  commenced .

That  following  resolutions  passed  in the annual general  meeting of  27.4.18,  the board  meeting  of  6.5.19,  ratified the  decisions  to approve  the amendments  of the by-laws.

That  a special  general meeting  for  17.5.2019 was issued  and the claimant  was invited  but he  did not  attend.

That  while  the special general meeting  was about  to end  it came to  the attention  of the  delegation  of the  instant  proceedings instituted  by the  claimant  and a resolution  was passed expelling  the claimant  as a delegate  for  his actions  in by-passing  the internal  dispute  resolution  mechanism laid  out  in the  by-laws  and the charter.

That  the expulsion  was of  his  capacity  of him  as a delegate  only.

That due to the chaos confusion  occasioned  on 17.5.19 at the special general meeting  caused  by the claimants  action,  there was  a decision  not to  invite  the claimant  to the education  visit  for delegates  at Mombasa from  3^rd – 7^th  June  2019 in a bid to maintain  law and order.

That the claimant  has  not been  sidelined  as a director.

In the  light  of all  that  the documents  and  the pleadings  on record  there  is nothing  to show  that the  claimant  was suspended  on 6.5.19 hence  orders  issued  on 9.5.19 were as  a result  of mis-representation  of the claimant  to the  tribunal hindered  there  was no  documents  filed to confirm  the said  suspension  to show  that indeed  the claimant  was ever suspended  by the  board.

It is  therefore  surprising  for  the  claimant  to impute/allege  contempt  of the tribunal  orders  knowing  very  well that there  was mis-representation/no  proof  presented on  the  alleged  suspension.

On  the issue  of contempt it was  paramount  for the claimant  to strictly  demonstrate  that indeed  that  there was a suspension  on the  6.5.2019 and  the resignation letter  of WILFRED  MWANGI KIBAKI of  26.5.2019, we  have also  noted  the minutes  of  the meeting  of the board  of directors  held on  6.5.2019 and specifically  minute  number  0305/2019, headed directors  discipline  issues in which  the said memorandum  dated  8.4.2019 was  discussed  in the presence  of the claimant.

There was  a resolution  that the  2 directors  had  a case  to answer and were  required  to show cause  why disciplinary  action should  not be taken against  them,  and in the  said meeting  one WILFRED  MWANGI  KIBAKI  tabled  his resignation letter  which  was accepted  by  the board.

That  the board  ratified  the decision  to call  for   a special  general meeting  on 17.5.19 to discuss  the amendments  to the by-laws.

We have  also  noted  the notice  for special general meeting  issued,  and the attendance  register for the board of directors  meeting  of 21.6.2019 as shown  in annexure  AK6.

That  the claimant  has  been dishonest  in his allegations for  contempt  and is  using  this proceedings  to blackmail  the board of directors  in an attempt  to stall  the disciplinary  proceeding  against  him.

We have carefully, considered  the pleadings  and documents  on record  and submission  by the  parties and address both application  as follows:-

(i) That  the alleged  suspension  of the  6.5.19 was not strictly  demonstrated  by the  claimant  since  it is  alleged  it was  a verbal  communication.

We have noted  that there  was an annual general meeting  on 27.4.18 in which  the claimant  was  present  and there  was a proposal  for amendment  of by-laws.

We have  also noted  the letter  dated  8.4.2019 and  the meeting  held that day  discussed  the discipline  issues  of the directors and  the claimant  was expected  to  show  cause why  disciplinary  action  should not  be  taken  against him. The  minutes are clear  on what  transpired  on the material  dates. That  indeed  the claimant  was  never  suspended  as  a director.

In the minutes  of the special general meeting  held  on  the  17.5.2019 was also  confirmed  that the claimant  was suspended  as a delegate  but confirmed  to serve  as a director  in the board.

In the essence  on 6.5.19 there  was  no suspension  proved  by the claimant  to warrant  the orders  issued  by the  tribunal  on 9.5.2019 be that  as it may  it follows then that  there is  no contempt  demonstrated by  the  claimant.

(ii) We find  that the  claimant  on the  6.5.2019 was put  on notice  of disciplinary  action  to be  commenced  against  him but  instead of  showing cause  and  following  the laid  out  procedure  laid out  in the by –laws as per  by- law  18, he came  to the  tribunal and filed  a suit. There is  no evidence  provided  in the first  instance  by the claimant  that  indeed there was  such  oral suspension  to warrant  citation  of contempt. However  since  the matter is still  pending  for determination,  we will  rest  at this  point pending  the hearing  and determination  of the main  claim.

In the circumstances  we find that  the  application  dated  8.5.19 and  filed  on 9.5.2019 and the application  dated 10.6.2019 filed  on  11.6.2019 have  no merits  and accordingly dismiss  both  application  with costs.

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

In the presence of:

Claimant: None-appearance

Respondent: Kibue advocate

Court Assistant: Leweri and Buluma

B.Kimemia  - Chairman-signed

R.Mwambura  – Member-signed

P.Swanya  - Member-signed