REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

MISC, CLAIM CASE NO. 4 OF 2019

NICHOLAS  SIMIYU  MAIKUMA..............................................1^ST CLAIMANT

PERIS  CHEMTAI  KIPTOO........................................................2^ND CLAIMANT

ALICE  KAVULANI LUVISI.........................................................3^RD CLAIMANT

VERSUS

SHADRACK  KIPYATICH JONATHAN........................................RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 30.7.2020,  the Respondent has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Orders inter alia:

1. That  this Application  be certified  as extremely urgent  and service  thereof be dispensed  with in the first  instance;

2. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  proceeds to dismiss/strike  out  Claimants claim  “with  prejudice” for lacking merit;

3. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to issue  a declaration  that the  applicant  herein  is  not guilty  of the allegations/offences  laid down  by the Claimants in the  statement of  claim dated  19^th  March,  2014;

4. That the claimants  pays damages  and/or  compensation  of Kshs.192,490.09/= suffered  by the Applicant;

5. That the Claimants  pays  costs  of the suit/claim;

6. Any other relief  that the Honourable  Tribunal  may deem fit  and just to grant;

7. That cost of this application be in the cause.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the   Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Respondent on  30.7.2019.

The Claimant have opposed the Application vide the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by the 1^st  Claimant, Nicholas  Simiyu on 29.10.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  5.8.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent filed his submissions on  10.9.2020 while  the Claimants did so  on 4.11.2020.

Respondent’s  Case

Vide  the instant Application, the Respondent  prays  for the statement of  claim dated  19.3.2014 to be  struck  off for lacking  merit  based  on grounds  inter alia.

That on 28.7.14, the Claimants  initiated  the claim  alleging  that he  approached  them  to guarantee a loan  of Kshs.95,000/=. That  he deny  even borrowing  the said  loan. That the  said statement  of claim  is fatally  defective  as it lacks  material  facts.  That the  said statement  of claim  is not accompanied  by  a witness statement.

That contrary  to the false  figures in the said  statement  of claim,  he borrowed  a  premium  (internal) loan of Kshs.90,000/= on  27.7.2011 which he started  repaying  through  his monthly  salary with effect from  1.8.2011 and  that  when his salary  was stopped  by his employer  Teachers  Service  Commission, the four guarantors  began  repaying  for him the  remaining  balance  of Kshs.80,000/=. That  the loan balance  he admitted  in his application dated 30.6.15 is not linked  to the loan of  Kshs.95,000/=. That  all the  documents  relied  on by the Claimants  do not  reflect  a loan of Kshs.95,000/=.

Claimant’s Case

The Claimants  have opposed  the   Application  on the ground  that  the claim  sought  to be struck  off  was heard and determined  by the Tribunal.  That the Claimants instituted  claim No. 33/14  and effected  service  upon the  Respondent.  That the  Respondent  did not  enter  appearance  thus prompting  ex parte  judgment  to be entered.  That later  on, the  Respondent applied for  it to be set aside.  That  this led to the case to proceed  on trial.  That later,  the suit was concluded  and judgment  entered  against  the Respondent. That  this  paved  way for execution  proceeding to commence. That due to  inadvertence,  the file  at the registry  could not  be  found leading  to reconstruction of  a skeleton  file. That  throughout  the  pendency of the same,  the Respondent was well aware  that the said  proceedings  were ongoing.  That he Respondent is  therefore being  mischievous  by revisiting  matters  which  have  since been  concluded.

Issues  for determination

The Claimant’s Application  has presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to grant the orders  sought;

b. Who should  meet the  costs  of the application?

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction  is everything. Without  it, a court of  law downs  its tools.  This was  the holding  of the court  in the celebrated  case of  In the  owners  of the Motor vessel  Lilian “S” –vs-  Caltex  oil (Kenya) Limited [1989]KLR1, Though not  stated directly, the Claimants  by stating  that the claim  the  Respondent  seeks  to strike  off was determined  a long time ago,  they are simply  saying that  we do not have  jurisdiction  to entertain  it.  Once a court  delivers  a judgment  it becomes  functus officio as regards  the pleadings  to resulted  in the said  judgment.  the effect  of this  is  that no party  is at liberty  to seek to litigate  on the said  matters unless  on an Application  for review  on or Appeal.

The Respondent has  not  controverted  the  contentions  by the  Claimants that the matters being  referred  to by the  Respondent  in the present Application  have since  been determined.  In fact  we note that  the judgment  emanating  from the said claim  are at execution  proceedings as  the Claimants have  filed  a Bill of costs  dated  5.6.2017.

In circumstances, we  find that  the instant Application  is a non-starter  and hereby dismiss it with costs  to the Claimants.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      25.3.2021

Hon. Jane Mwatsama        Deputy Chairperson     Signed      25.3.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki                       Member                       Signed      25.3.2021

Nakitare  holding brief for  Kweu for Claimant: Present

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      25.3.2021

By consent  fixed  for taxation. Mention  13.5.2021 at Kakamega

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      25.3.2021