REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.697 OF 2019

RICHARD  MUGAMBI  MAINGI..........................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

ST. MARY’S  TRANSPORT  SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED..........RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 28.1.2020,  the Claimant has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for the following Orders 

a. That  this  Application  be certified  as urgent  service to the  Respondent be dispensed  with and the Application  be heard  ex-parte in the 1^st instance;

b. That this  Honourable  Tribunal  does  Order the Respondent  to release  and clear  the Applicant’s motor vehicle Registration No. KAZ 193 E with the NTSA to enable  him register  with the Sacco of his choice, being  LA Trans Limited  to enable him  operate  his vehicle  with and through  the new Sacco.

c. That in the  alternative, and without  prejudice  to the  proceeding paragraph the Honourable  Court does, at the 1^st instance, Order  and/or  direct the National  Transport  and Safety  Authority (NTSA) to remove and/or  delete  the registration  of the Plaintiff’s  motor vehicle  registration No. KAZ 193E with the Respondent  herein,  being St. Mary’s Transport  Sacco Society Limited  and thereafter  direct  the said  motor vehicle  be registered  with LA  Trans Limited, the said  choice of  the Respondent.

d. That  the  Honourable Court  does also issue  injunctive Orders  against  the Respondent, its officials, servants, agents or any other  person  or institution  acting under  the Respondents direct and/or  implied  instructions  from  interfering  with the operations  of Registration  No. KAZ 193E.

e. That  the Honourable  Court  does  subsequently allow the Applicant  to amend  his claim  to  include  the Respondent’s  Chairman as a Respondent  in this claim.

f. That the Respondent  be condemned  to pay costs.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn  by himself  on  even  date (28.1.2020). The Respondent has  opposed  the same by filing a Replying  Affidavit  sworn by Joseph  Mathenge Kabiru on 4.3.2020.  The Claimant filed  a further Affidavit  sworn  by  himself  on  18.8.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  24.4.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant  filed  his  on  1.9.2020.  The Respondent  did  not do so despite  service  and  several  indulgence  by the Tribunal.

Claimant’s Case

In the present Application the Claimant contend that the Respondent  stopped  his motor vehicle  registration  No.  KAZ  193 E  from operating  under the Respondent’s  route  after  he refused  to pay extortionist  charges  imposed  by the Respondent.

That  the Respondent  has thus  spitefully and maliciously declined to discharge  the said motor vehicle from  the NTSA thus  preventing  him from  registering  it  with another  Sacco.

Respondent’s  Contention

The Respondent  has opposed  the Application  on the following  grounds:

That the suit motor vehicle  (KAZ 193E) is registered  in the name  of Samuel  Kiptanui Boit, one of the  its members  as well.  That  annexture  RMM-1 of the annextures to the Claimant’s  supporting  Affidavit  (sworn on  28.1.2020) confirms  this fact.

That on 15.11.2012, Samuel  Kiptarus  Boit  applied for  a loan of kshs.400,000/= from the  Respondent. That  the said loan  was approved  on 16.1.20. That  subsequently, Mr. Boit defaulted  in repaying  the said loan  and such,  the  Respondent  has a lieu of over  the  suit motor vehicles.

That   it is not  its mandate  to transfer  motor vehicles  as that is  the exclusive  mandate of  the NTSA.

Claimant’s  further Affidavit

Whilst  rebutting  the averments  made by the Respondent  above, the  Claimant contends  as follows in the instant  Affidavit.

That the said motor vehicle is registered  in his name.  That a certificate of registration  annexed  to the Affidavit  is marked as RM-1 confirms  the said fact.

That  as regards the status  of  Samuel  Boit in the Respondent,  the said Samuel  Boit resigned  from the Respondent  by virtue  of being a policeman  on 4.1.2020. That he wrote  a letter  confirming  that fact. That from  the said letter,  the security  for  repayment  of Mr. Boit’s loan  is Motor Vehicle Registration No. KAX 366W and not KAZ 193E.

That  he never  applied  for a loan  alluded to  by the Respondent.

Issues  for determination

We have framed  the following  issues for determination:-

a. Whether  the Claimant  has established  a proper  basis  to warrant  an Order  issued directing  the Respondent  or NTSA  to  release  and clear  his motor vehicle  registration No.  KAZ 193E  with NTSA.

b. Whether  the Claimant  has established  a proper basis  for the grant  of  an order  restraining  the Respondents  from interfering  with operation of Motor Vehicle  Registration No. KAZ 193E.

c. Whether  the Claimant  should be allowed  to amend  his claim.

d. Who should  meet  the costs  of the Application.

Discharge  of the Claimant’s Motor Vehicle

Rule  5  of the NTSC (Operation  of Public  Service  Vehicles) Regulations, 2014 provide  the manner  in which a person  desirous  of  operating  a Public  Service  Vehicle  can  obtain  a license  to undertake  such  a business. It provides  in the pertinent part thus:

“ 5 (1) A person  desirous of operating  Public Service  Vehicle, shall  be a member  of a body  Corporate  which shall-

a. Be licensed  to operate  if the body corporate  owns  a minimum  of  thirty  serviceable  vehicles registered  as public  service  vehicle,  or in respect  to which  an application  for a license  has been  or is to be  lodged  with the authority..”

It follows therefore that  a person  can only  secure  a Road Service  License  through  a Corporate  entity. In the circumstances of this case, a Co-operative  Society.

What is  discernible  further  is that the NTSA  only issues  Public Service  License  to Corporate  entities  who meet  the requirements of Rule 5  of the Rules  aforesaid.  Once this  happens, it will now  be incumbent  upon  the corporate  entity to  submit  details  of vehicle operating  under it  to facilitate issuance  of  Road Service  Licenses. What this means  therefore is that a Road Service  License  of a particular  vehicle  can only  be withdrawn  upon approval  by  the Corporate  entity under which  its operating.

In the present  Application, the  Claimant  contends  that his motor  vehicle  registration No. KAZ 193E operates  under  the Respondent. That it is desirous of leaving the Respondent but   it  has unreasonably  refused  and/or  declined  to discharge  it. That it  now wants  the Respondent  to be compelled  to release  him.

On its part,  the Respondent  contend  that it does not  have  power  to effect the  transfers as that  is the sole preserve  of NTSC. That  in any event, the Claimant  is not  the registered  owner of  the  Motor Vehicle Registration  No. KAZ 193E. That  the registered  owner  is one Samuel  Kiptanui Boit. That  the said  Samuel Boit  has a loan  which he  took  and  it  thus holds  the said motor vehicle  as its lien.

We have  perused  annexture  RM-1 of the annextures to the Claimant’s  further Affidavit sworn on 18.8.2020. It is  the certificate  of official search  of Motor Vehicle  Registration  No. KAZ 193 E. It  shows the  current  registered  owner as  Richard  Mugambi Maingi, the Claimant herein. With this revelation in the fore,  we find  the Respondent’s arguments surrounding  ownership of  the said  motor vehicle  baseless.

As to whether  or not the Claimant  is indebted  to the Respondent,   we have perused  the Respondent’s  Replying  Affidavit sworn  on  4.3.2020. We note  that the only document pointing  towards  the Claimants indebtedness to it is annexture DRD4. It is a letter addressed  to the Claimant  dated 1.11.2019. Vide  the said letter,  the Respondent  is calling for repayment  of an  outstanding  loan  of Kshs.40,000/=. The  Respondent has not annexed  documents to  show advancement  and accrual of the said  loan.  This  is  the loan  Application  form and  loan statement. In the  absence  of  these documents, we are unable  to  ascertain  if indeed  the Claimant has an outstanding  loan with  it.

The totality  of the foregoing  therefore is that we are satisfied  that the Claimant has established  a proper  basis  to warrant  us issue  an Order  directing  the Respondent  to discharge   and/or release  motor vehicle  registration KAZ 193E from its membership.

Order against  NTSC

We find that we do  not have jurisdiction  to make any Order  against NTSC.

Amendment of Claim

As regards the prayer  for amendment of the claim,  we note that the Respondent  has not opposed  it and that the Respondent  will not suffer  any prejudice  if the same is allowed.  We however,  do not  find a basis with which  the Claimant  wants  to include  the Respondent’s Chairman  as a party  while  it has already  said the  Respondent  as a Principal  party.  We however do not  want  to direct  the Claimant  on what  to do with  his case.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that  we allow  the Claimant’s  Application  as follows:

a. That an Order  is hereby  issued directing  the Respondent  to release  and clear  the Claimant’s Motor Vehicle  registration  No. KAZ 193E with  NTSC to enable  him register with a Sacco  of his choice;

b. The Order  (a) above to  subsist pending  the hearing  and determination  of the main claim; and

c. Costs  in the cause

Ruling  signed,  dated and  delivered virtually  this  28^th  day of January, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      28.1.2021

Mr. B. Akusala                      Member                       Signed      28.1.2021

Mr. R. Mwambura                Member                       Signed      28.1.2021

Miss. Mwikali holding  brief  for Mutua  for  defendant: Present

Mention  for Pre- trial  directions  on  16.3.2021. Notice to issue.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      28.1.2021