REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.160 OF 2016

TARDA SACCO LIMITED..................................CLAIMANT   

VERSUS

MARY  N.  MWEMA........................................RESPONDENT

AND

TARDA SACCO SOCIETY  LIMITED..............GARNISHEE

RULING

The Decree  Holder  has taken  out  a Notice  to show cause  dated 9.7.2019.  Vide  the said Notice,  it wants the Judgment  Debtor  to be committed to civil jail for  failing  to honour  a decree passed by this Tribunal.  That the Decree  is for Kshs.5,045, 478.60/=. It avers  that this  is   the last recourse  available  to it  in  its  quest  to enjoy the fruits  of its judgment. Vide  its  written  submissions  dated  10.3.2020,  the Decree Holder  avers  that Section  38  of the Civil  Procedure  Act (Cap 21) Laws  of Kenya provides  the legal framework  governing  committal  of persons  to civil jail.  It then  cited  the  following authorities to support the Notice to show cause.

a. Innocent  G. Ondietei – vs- Julius  Nakaya  Kabole[2019]eKLR;

b. Jane Wangui  Gachoka – vs-  KCB Limited  [2013] eKLR, and

c. Solomon  Muriithi Gitundu &  Another –vs-  Jared  Maingi  Mburu[2017] eKLR

Judgment  Debtor’s Contention

Vide  the Replying  Affidavit sworn  on  30.10.2019 the Judgment  has opposed  the Notice to show cause  on grounds  that  she is financially  constrained  and is thus  unable to settle the decree wholly. That she is  praying to be allowed  to settle  the decretal amount by way  of  monthly  installments of Kshs.5000/=. That  she work with  Tana & Athi  River  Development Authority earning  a net salary  of Kshs. 18,802.30/=.

Issues  for determination

The Decree  Holder’s Notice  to show cause  dated 9.7.2019 has presented  the following  issues  for  determination:

a. Whether  the Judgment  Debtor  has shown  proper cause    why she  should not be arrested  and committed  to Civil Jail;

b. What Orders  are available  in the circumstances?.

Notice to Show Cause

The right  to commit  a judgment  Debtor  to civil  jail is provided  for under section  38  of the  Civil Procedure  Act  it   provides  thus:

“ Subject  to such conditions  and limitations  as may be  prescribed,  the court may, on Application  of a  Decree Holder, Order execution  in a decree-

d - by  arrest  and detention  of any  person:-

Provided  that where  the  decree  is for payment  of money,  execution  by detention  in prison  shall not  be   Ordered  unless  after  giving  the Judgment  Debtor  an opportunity  of showing  cause why  he  should  not be committed  to prison,  the court,  for reasons  for  reasons to be recorded  in writing, this satisfied-

a.  That the Judgment Debtor with the object or effect of obstructing  or  delaying  the execution  of the decree.

i.  Is likely  to abscond  or leave  the local  limits  of the jurisdiction  of the court or;

ii. That  the Judgment – Debtor  has or  had since the date of the decree,  the  means to pay  the  amount  of the decree  or some substantial  part thereof and refuses,  or neglects, or  has refused  or neglected,  to pay the same, but in  calculating  such means,.....

The court   in  the case  of Jedida  Chepkoech  Miya (suing  as the legal  Representative of  the Estate  of Julius  Kipkorir Mutai [deceased] Cherono Beatrice [2018] eKLR interpreted  section  38  above  in the following  terms:

“ As  I understand  it,  the general  position  in  law is that the arrest contemplated under sections  38  and 40  of the Civil Procedure Act  is not  unconstitutional. All  that is required  in proceeding  under  the two provisions is that there has to be  strict adherence  to the Law. In Jane  Wangui  Gachoka – vs-  Kenya Commercial  Bank Limited  [2013] eKLR,  the  petitioner  asked the court  to  decline sections  38  (d) and 40  of the Civil Procedure  Act  and  Order  XXI Rules  32, 33 of the Rules  which  allowed for committal  to civil jail for non-payment  of a debt  as archaic and unconstitutional. In declining  to make the declaratory  orders, sought  by the Petitioner,  the court stated  as follows:

“[33]  The  deprivation of  liberty  sanctioned by sections  38  and 40  of the Civil  Procedure  Act is  permissible  and is not  in violation of either  the constitution or ICPR. The caveat,  however,  which  has been emphasized  in all cases  set out above is that before  a person can be committed to Civil Jail  for  non-payment  of a debt,  there  must  be strict  adherence  to the procedures laid  down in the  Civil  Procedure Act and Rules, which provide due process  safeguards essential  to making limitation  of the right  to liberty  permitted in this case  acceptable  in a free  and  democratic  society.

The court  set  out the  due  process  referred  to in  the  Jane  Wangui  Gachoka  case  in  the case  of  Grand  Greek  LLC &  Another  - vs-  Nathan  Chesang  Moson[2015] eKLR as follows:

“ In all  cases where  Order  22  Rule  18 (1) of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  applies, a Notice  must  be served  upon  the  person against  whom execution  is  applied requiring  him to show cause on a date  to be fixed  why the decree  should not  be executed  against him.  It should  be noted,  however, that there must  have been an Application  for  execution  of a decree  for  payment of money by arrest  and detention  in prison  of a Judgment- Debtor. And  Order 22  Rule  31  will come into  play  where  the court,  instead  of  issuing  a warrant of arrest, decides  to issue  a Notice  calling  upon  the Judgment Debtor  to appear before  the court on a day  to be  specified in the Notice  and  Show Cause  why he should  not  be committed  to Prison.  But  where the judgment debtor does not  appear  as directed in the  Notice,  the court  will issue a warrant of his arrest.  The warrant  of arrest is to bring  the judgment debtor  to court  and  is not automatic  committal  to prison  because  the court will  still be  required  to satisfy itself  of all the requirements of Order  22 Rule  33 and Rule  34 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The proceedings  under  Order  22 Rule  34  Act  as the safeguard  against  denial  of liberty  in execution  of a decree without due process.....”

We have  extensively cited  the law and authorities  so as to satisfy  ourselves  that all the legal  protocols have been  followed  before the  Notice  to show cause  is  heard  and determined.

We have  perused  the record  and ascertained  that these  safeguards have been  followed  thus far.  We  have seen an Application  for execution  of decree. The same  sets out  the date  when the  decree  was passed (in this case  on 15.8.2017) and the amounts  contained  in the decree. Subsequently, the arrest  Notice to Show Cause  was taken  out.  The Judgment Debtor has  responded  to  it.

Coming  to the merits  of the  Notice to show  cause,  the question  we pause  is whether  the Judgment Debtor  has  explained  and or shown  sufficient  cause why  she should  not be arrested  and committed  to  civil  jail.  We note that  the amounts  in the decree  is colossal one.  While  the Judgment  Debtor  has given  a  proposal  on payment, the same  is  quite  low in the circumstances. We  have perused  her  pay slip and  note  that her gross  pay  is Kshs. 87,684/=.

We  note  that  she has liabilities  to Faulu Kenya  Limited  and is paying  kshs.30,000/= per month. We  also  note that  she contributes a sum of  Kshs.5300/= monthly  to the Claimant. The picture  painted  by the pay slip is  that the Judgment Debtor  is a person who  is able  to repay the decretal amount.  We do  not fathom  why she has not taken  the initiative  to do so.  It should  not be lost on her that  the monies  being demanded  from her  belong to the Claimant’s  members  and that they  are being  subjected  to unnecessary  disdain by the  continued  failure  to repay the same.

We  are thus  not convinced that  the Judgment  Debtor  has  shown  cause  why she should  not be  arrested  and committed  to Civil jail.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we find  merit  in the Decree Holder’s  Notice to show cause dated 9.7.2020 and hereby  issue  a warrant of arrest  against  the Judgment  Debtor  to  be brought  to  court  to show cause why  she should  not  be committed  to Civil Jail. The Judgment  Debtor   to meet  the costs of the Notice to show 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

Mr. Ajiki holding brief  for Ms. Merichi for Judgment Creditor:- Present

No appearance for  Judgment Debtor.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      28.1.2021