REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.609 OF 2017

BIASHARA SACCO SOCIETY  LIMITED ………...……………CLAIMANT

VERSUS

PETER  KAMAU  NDIRITU……….………………..…...……RESPONDENT

RULING

The Matter  for determination  is  an  application  dated  24.6.19  seeking  the following  orders:-

1. Spent

2. That this honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to set aside,  vary and/or  review  he proceedngs  and consequential orders made  by  this honourable Tribunal  on 12^th March  2018 allowing   the claimant’s/respondent’s  request  for judgment  indefault  of appearance.  

3. Spent

4. That upon  granting prayers 2 and  3  hereinabove  this honourable tribunal  be pleased  to  and hereby  do grant  leave  to the respondent/applicant  herein  to file  the requisite  response  to the main  claim brought  against  him by  the claimant/respondent  herein.

5. That upon  granting  prayers  2,3, &4 hereinabove   this honourable  court be pleased  to and hereby  admit  the claim  for directions and fix   an early  hearing  date  for the same.

6. That  the costs  of this application  be provided for.

Based  on the grounds  on the  face of the  application and supported  by an affidavit  of ANTONY  KINYUA advocate.  The same  is opposed  vide  the grounds  of opposition  filed on 3.6.2019 based  on  the following grounds:

1. That the Respondent/Applicant’s application  dated  24.6.19 herein is  merely meant  to delay the cause  of Justice.

2. That the Respondent/Applicant’s  application  dated  24.6.19 in misconceived, mischievous, in bad faith, is  frivolous and vexatious.  

And  the replying  affidavit of H.S.MSHILA filed  on 4^th  July 2019. The application  was canvassed  by way  of  written  submissions.

The applicant  filed  their written submissions  on 30.9.19.

The claimant  obtained  an ex-parte  judgment  yet  he was never  served  with any  document only for  the  respondent  to learn of  this matter  upon  his  arrest  in execution  of the orders  of 14.6.2019.

That  the whole  claim is  res-judicata,  a similar  suit  OTHAYA  PMCC  29/15 having  been  dismissed by a competent  court  on 19.1.17.

That  the claimant  had never  appealed against  the same  dismissal, and  the orders  have never  been  reviewed  and the  present  claim is neither  an appeal  nor  an application  to set  aside/review/vary  the said  dismissal  orders.

That  the claimant  has admitted  the respondent  is not a member  but merely a customer.

That  in the circumstances, the relationship  between  the claimant  and the  respondent  makes the suit  not  fall  under the  provisions of section  76   of the Cooperative Society Act hence  the tribunal  has no  jurisdiction  in the matter  and similar  suit  was dismissed  at the Magistrates  Court.

That  therefore  the application  should  be allowed,  exparte  judgment  set aside  and the suit  be dismissed for want of  jurisdiction.

The respondent  filed written submission on 7.10.19 and the claimant  submitted  that the  suit  filed  in OTHAYA   was  dismissed  for non-attendance therefore  it is not  res-judicata.

That  the claimant  falls  within  the definition  under section  76  of Cooperative Society Act since   he registered  and was issued  with an account/membership number  and accessed  loan  facilities  which  are only  available  to the members.

That the  Magistrate  Courts  at Othaya therefore had no jurisdiction, hence  the issue  of res-judicata is misplaced.

That  the supported  affidavit  deponed  by an  advocate  who has stated  issues  of fact,  which  are disputed. Therefore, the said  affidavit  has not  probative  value  and the  facts  which  have sought  to  be proved.

 That therefore  the said  supporting  affidavit  should be registered  for  having  deponed  facts  which  are not  within  the advocates  knowledge.

That  the claimant  was duly  served  as per  the affidavit  of service  dated  13.12.17 and 2.8.18 and  there was  no request  to cross  examine the  process  server  of the said  affidavit.

That  the applicant  has no defence against  the claim  which  would  raise  any triable  issues.

That it has  not been  disputed  that the  respondent was granted credit  facility  of Kshs.430,000/=yet  he failed  to honor  the repayment.

That the  applicant  did not  attach any  defence  or draft  defence  in support  of the  application to set  aside  the ex-parte  judgment.

The  respondent  therefore  seeks  for the dismissal  of the  application.

We have  carefully  considered  the submissions of the parties, the  pleadings on record, we have  noted  the  loan application  form account. The statements and  the statement of  claim  filed  on 24.10.17. We note that  the  respondent  was a member  No. 22531860 with  an account  No.6432-23-00043/2008-03-00189 as per  the application form which  indicates  that the account  was opened  on 13.5.10 and the loan  application  form is  dated  12.10.12 with  the respondent  having Self Beba deposit  of estimated  value  Kshs.260,039/=. The  amount  of loan  approved  was Kshs.41,500/= with a  repayment  period of  9 months of instalments  of Kshs.5138/= including  interest  rate of  1.1% per month. The loan-letter of offer  and acceptance  dated  19.10.12 was  clear  on this.   We, therefore note that the claimant was a member as per the said documents hence falls under the jurisdiction of the tribunal enumerated in Section 76 of Co-operative Society Act.

We have also noted the plaint filed, dated 11.8.2015 for PMCC 29/2015 and the submissions that the said suit was dismissed for non-attendance as pleaded paragraph 12 of the statement of claim on the issue that suit is res-judicata,  we note that hearing inter alia stated that the respondent is a member of the claimant. It goes without saying the Magistrate’s Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter hence the issue of res-judicata does not arise in this circumstance.

We also further note that the suit was dismissed for non-attendance Section 7 Civil Procedure Act is clear on the definition res-judicata.

 That a court of competent jurisdiction, speaking upon the matter in question which directly and substantially in issue, has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they claim on litigating under the same title, directly having pronounce the matter in question in the suit cannot be brought to trial in a subsequent suit.

We note that the Magistrate Court had no jurisdiction in the 1^st instance and did not direct it’s mind to address  itself on sustainability in the matter hence this suit cannot be held res-judicata. 

On the issue of setting aside of the ex-parte judgment, it was held in the case of SHAH .VS. MBOGO (1967) E.A 116. It was held that the court must be satisfied about one of the things;-

(a)  Either the defendant was not properly served with the summons.

(b) Or that the defendant failed to appear in court at the hearing due to sufficient cause.

In this case the applicant/ respondent alleges that he was not served and this allegation has been brought forward by the advocate who has sworn the affidavit in support of the application, yet the ‘ purported facts’ were not within the knowledge of the said advocate who deponed the supporting affidavit.  The issue of service in a ‘matter of fact’.

We are not told why the applicant did not depone the affidavit. It is  trite law that  a  deponent  deposits  matters  that are within  their  knowledge  which  matters  they can be examined  upon. Advocates  can only  depone  legal  issues  and matters within  their  knowledge.  This is to avoid  a situation where  the advocate  may be  called  for cross  examination  as a witness  on the  matters  deposit.

We also note  the affidavit  of service  of SAMWEL WACHIRA  MBUTHIA  who deponed  the affidavit  of service  that  on  15.11.17 he received the summons  and on  8.12.2017,served  the  respondent  at his place of business and that  the respondent  was pointed  out to him by MARY NJERI  KIEMA  a credit  officer of  the claimant. The  said  process  server  was not  called  for cross examination  on his  affidavit  of service filed  on 17.1.18.

We also  note that the respondent  in their  application  did not  file  a defence  or a draft  defence  to enable  the tribunal  to determine  whether  such defence  or draft  defence  raises  triable  issues  for determination  to warrant  setting aside  of the  ex-parte  judgment.

We  also note  that  this  application  was brought  about at  the execution  stage  and  was  filed on  24.6.19 yet the  judgment  was entered  on 12.3.18.  There  was inordinate delay  by the  applicant  and even though  they  have purported  that the respondent  was not  duly  served these  are  mere allegations which are  not merited  and do not meet the threshold  as discussed  above  to  warrant  setting  aside  the ex-parte  judgment.

In totality therefore, we find that the application  dated  24.6.19 has no merit  and it is  accordingly dismissed  with costs.

The claimant can therefore proceed with the execution.  

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

In the presence of:

Claimant: None-appearance

Respondent: None-appearance

Court Assistant: Leweri and Buluma

B. Kimemia  - Chairman-signed

R. Mwambura  – Member-signed

P. Swanya  - Member-signed