REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 344 OF 2019

DAVID  MATEGWA…….....….……………………………………..……………CLAIMANT

VERSUS

KENYA UNION OF SAVINGS &CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE                                                   

SOCIETY LIMITED……………………………………………………..……..RESPONDENT

RULING

The matter  for determination  is  a Notice of Motion  application  dated  26.6.2019 filed  on the same date seeking  the following  orders:-

1. That this application  be certified  as urgent.

2. That pending  the hearing and determination  of this application  and this  case,  there be stay  of the suspension  of the Claimant as a Member  of the  Board  of Directors of Kenya Union  of Savings and Credit Co-operatives limited.

3. That costs  of this application be provided  for.

Based on the  grounds  on the face  of the application  supported  by  the affidavit  of the  claimant.

The same  is opposed  vide  replying  affidavit  of GEORGE  OTOTO secretary  of the board  filed  on  1.7.2019.

The parties  canvassed  the application  by  way of written submissions.

The claimants  filed  a further  affidavit  on 22.8.2019. in their  written  submissions  filed  on 2.9.2019 the claimant  has submitted  that on  or  about  28.5.2012 he was  elected  as a director  of the  respondent  and recognized  for his  invaluable  contributions.

That he  discharged  his duties  with utmost  professionalism and fidelity.

That  on 23.5.2019 he received  a letter  from the chairman  asking him  to vacate  the board  as per  by-law  29 which  provides  for eligibility  as a member  and does not provide  for suspension.

That  the resolution  of  the  members during  the Annual  delegates  meeting  form  the decisions  of the  respondents, after following the laid  down  procedures and not  vide unilateral  and arbitrary actions  of  the  chairman.

That  vide  the letter  dated 23.5.19 the chairman  unilaterally  purported to suspend.

That  the by-laws  have no where stated  that the board  of directors  have  to verify  considerations for appointment.

That only  the board of directors  can suspend  a board member subject  to rectification  by the annual  delegates  meeting.

That there  was  resolution  to suspend  him  for failure  to submit  academic  certificate.

That by-law  29  provides  for condition  to be  met for  one to be  eligible  but does not  provide  for removal  from  office.

That by-law  33 (i) provides  that a member  can only  be removed  as provided  by the by-laws.

That the supreme authority  is vested  in the delegates  meeting.

In  response the respondent  submitted  that  by –law  29 has made  it  mandatory  that “No person  SHALL be eligible  for membership  of the board  of the  union or remain  as member  of the board  if …..”

That by –law  29 (L) provides  for attainment  of ordinary  level  of  education  on its  equivalent .

That  the Board of  Directors  sought  to enforce  compliance  of by-law  29(L) in December  2017 and followed  up with  correspondence  to the claimant  to avail  his certificate which  was in  vain.

That  the by-law  is a creation  of the delegates  and  the claimant took  oath  to aside  by it and  ensure  compliance  with  its  provisions.

That  the Board of Directors  passed  a resolution  to ensure  compliance  with  the provisions of by-law  29 (L) a mandatory  requirement  for one  to be  a member  or to  remain  as such.

That  the claimant  has  not demonstrated  and/or  proved  attainment  of the  set mandatory  requirement of the respondent.

That  the claimant  did  not discharge  its duty  or burden  of proof  regarding  the same.

That by –law  3 0(iv) permits  the board  to  suspend  a member  and such decision  be ratified  by the  Annual  Delegates  Meeting.

That  the claimant  has  not  demonstrated  that the  respondent  Board  has failed  to represent his suspension  to the delegates.

That  the claim  herein  is pre-mature  based  on the provisions  of by-law  45 (a), which  requires  that disputes  concerning  operations  of the union  be referred  to the Board or  delegates  and  when  the said  dispute  cannot  be resolved thereby  then the  same  can be  referred  to the Tribunal.

That  therefore  the tribunal  lacks  the jurisdiction  to entertain  this claim.

That the  suspension  of the claimant is still  pending  rectification by  the delegates  and this dispute has not  been  referred  to the  delegate  for determination.

We have carefully  considered  submission of the parties  an evidence  on record. We have  also noted  the provisions of by-law  29 which  is crafted  in mandatory terms  for eligibility as of members  of Board  of Directors. We  have  also  noted,  resolution  on page 8 of the  minutes  of  the meeting  held  on 21.12.2017 which  resolution  recommended  that all  board  members  were to submit  their  academic/training  certificate  and Curriculum Vitae by  31.12.2017 and the  same was rescheduled  to 15.1.18 and the said  resolution  was proposed by  DAVID  OGEGE seconded  by PETER  KIAREAMANU and  approved  unanimously  and the  claimant  was  member number  3 of  the list  of  directors  present  at the  meeting. This  resolution  has not been  disputed  by the claimant. We  have also  noted   that  the letter  dated  6.7.2018 addressed  to the claimant  urging  him to  submit his updated  Curriculum Vitae and  certificates by  24.7.18.

We have  also noted  the email dated 20.7.18 on the same  matter,  the email dated  8.8.18 on  the same  reference, the letter  dated  13.9.18. ALL  these letters  requesting  the claimant  to submit  his academic, professional  certificates  and  Bio data.

The claimant  has not  provided  any evidence  showing  compliance/response to all  these  letters and   the resolution  of the  full board  members dated  21.12.2017 for which  the deadline  to submit  was directed  to be  on  15.1.18.

The  by-laws  are  clear  on eligibility .

To membership  of the board. By –law  29 introductory  part  is crafted  in mandatory  terms  for  requirement  for membership and to  remain a member.

In this regard  there is  no evidence  or proof  that the  claimant  was eligible  for membership or  to  remain  a member  owing  to the fact  that the  resolution  of 21.12.17 of the  full board  was the unanimous  decision  for every member  to comply  with the specific  by-law number  29 (L) by  15.1.18.

The letter  addressed  to the claimant  was a culmination  to all the remainders to the  claimants  to comply. Since  there was  no compliance  it therefore  goes  without saying  that  the claimant  in the first  instance  was  not  eligible  to be  a board  member  or to  remain  as a board  member,  we therefore  find that  the claimants  application  dated 26.6.19 seeking  for stay  of suspension of the claimants  as a member  of the board  of directors  of the  respondent has no  merit.  This is  for the  main reason  that  the claimant  was never  in the first  place  eligible  as such as a member  having not  complied  to the  mandatory  by –law  29 (L).

We accordingly dismiss the said application with costs.

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

In the presence of:

Claimant: Kibue holding brief for Chege for the Claimant.

Respondent: Mbuthia holding brief for Modi for the Respondent.

Court Assistant: Leweri and Buluma.

B.Kimemia               -          Chairman-signed.

R.Mwambura          –          Member-signed.

P.Swanya                 -          Member-signed.