Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Tribunal Case 264 of 2019|
|Parties:||Nancy Wanjiko Kingori v Kussco Limited & Intime Auctioneers|
|Date Delivered:||07 Nov 2019|
|Judge(s):||B. Kimemia - Chairman-signed R. Mwambura – Member-signed P. Swanya - Member-signed|
|Citation:||Nancy Wanjiko Kingori v Kussco Limited & another  eKLR|
|Parties Profile:||Individual/Private Body/Association v Individual/Private Body/Association|
|Case Outcome:||Suit dismissed|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL CASE NO.264 OF 2019
NANCY WANJIKO KINGORI.......................................................................CLAIMANT
KUSSCO LIMITED................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
INTIME AUCTIONEERS....................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
The Matter for determination is a Notice of Motion application dated 4.6.19 seeking the following orders:-
1. That this application be certified as urgent and service be dispensed with in the first instance and heard ex-parte for reasons of its urgency.
2. That the defendant be and are hereby restrained by a temporary order of injunction from auctioning, selling, disposing, evicting or in any other way interfering with the plaintiff’s use and occupation of all that parcel of land known as CIS-MARA/OLOPITO/2336 pending the hearing and determination of this application interpartes.
3. That the defendant be and are hereby restrained by a permanent order of injunction from auctioning, selling, disposing, evicting or in any other way interfering with the plaintiff’s use and occupation of all that parcel of land known as CIS-MARA/OLOPITO/2336 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
4. That the costs of the Auctioneer be taxed by this honorable court.
5. That the costs of this application be provided for.
Based on the grounds on the face of the application supported by an affidavit of NANCY WANJIKU KING’ORI the plaintiff/applicant.
The same is opposed vide the replying affidavit of GEORGE OTOTO filed on 27.6.2019.
The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The applicant filed their submissions on 27.8.19 and submitted that the applicant is the legal proprietor of land parcel CIS MARA/OLOPITO/2326 and has been a member of KUSCO LIMITED.
That she took a loan of Kshs.1million on 5.6.2012 and used other land parcel as a security.
That she had been struggling with the repayments and is ready and willing to clear the loan arrears and interests.
That the defendant /respondent failed to serve the statutory notice to the applicant and advertised in the local dailies to sell the said land parcel by Public Auction.
They, therefore seek for injunctive orders against the respondent. They have cited the authorities they wish to rely upon. The respondent filed written submission on 7.8.2019. They have submitted that the loan was advanced to the claimant but she defaulted in repaying the loan and through a letter dated 5.7.2016. Statutory notice was issued and served through registered notice.
That the claimant after receiving the served letter made payment of Kshs. 50,000/- on 28.10.2016, 25,000/- on 24.2.2017, 50,000/- 0n 3.3.2017 and 22.6.2017, total Kshs. 439,850/-.
That after the lapse of 3 months’ notice, the respondent engaged the 2nd respondent auctioneers in exercise of its statutory powers of sale.
That the 2nd respondent advertised for public auction.
We have carefully considered the evidence on record and the submissions of the parties. Conditions for granting interlocutory injunction in GIELLA .VS. CASSMAN BROWN AND CO. LTD (1973) E.A358 herein states;-
(1) Prima facie case with probability of success.
(2) Irreparable harm which cannot be compensated by award of damages.
(3) Balance of convenience.
Prima facie case-
The applicant has submitted that she is the legal and beneficial owner as evidence by the title deed used as evidence hence she has a genuine and arguable case. On the other hand, the respondent argues that indeed she is indebted to the respondent and that the 1st respondent was exercising his power of sell.
That the applicant was full aware of the charge registered against her property and the consequence of default. The applicant had also argued that she will suffer irreparable lose that cannot be compensated by an award in damages since the suit property is her matrimonial home and sell of the land parcel will cause untold suffering to whole family and this cannot be compensated by an award in damages. The respondent has argued that the claimant can be compensated by an award of damages if the injunction is not issued.
In the balance of convenience, the applicant submitted the statutory notice was issued a month after drafting and she was not given the necessary 45 days to recover the charged property.
That she has been making monthly repayment thus the statutory notice was not in good faith.
The Respondent submitted that the balance of convenience does not favour the applicant since this was a security for a loan and the respondent is entitled to recover their money loaned to the claimant through a valid legally executed contract between them. That the application should therefore be dismissed since it has not established all the conditions.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and we note that this is a matrimonial home of the claimant and she is willing to repay the loan therefore if the said land is sold then it will be prejudicial to the whole suit since the claimant has made some payment and it has not been established how much is owing to date.
We therefore find as follows that the claimant has established a prima facie case and may suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by an award in damages if the suit property is sold.
The balance of convenience tilts in her favor since she has demonstrated the willingness to pay and if the interlocutory injunction is not issued then the family is likely to lose their home. We therefore find that the application dated 4.6.19 has merits and is granted in terms of prayer 2 and 3. For prayer 4, it is not clear what is being taxed as the auctioneers cost hence this prayer is accordingly dismissed since it has no merits
On prayer, 5 costs in the cause. Parties to fix the matter for directions.
Read and delivered in open court, this 7th of November 2019
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Leweri and Buluma
B. Kimemia - Chairman-signed
R. Mwambura – Member-signed
P. Swanya - Member-signed