REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO.118 OF 2020

AGNES  AMEYO..........................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL  HOSPITAL  INSURANCE  FUND                                            

SAVINGS  & CREDIT  SOCIETY  LIMITED.....................RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 10.8.2020,  the Respondent has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for  following Orders: 

a. Spent;

b. Spent;

c. That pending  the hearing  and determination  of this Application  there be  a stay of execution  of the judgment  entered  on 28^th July, 2020 and all consequential  Orders  thereto;

d. That  this Honourable  Court do  set aside  the exparte  interlocutory judgment  entered against  the Defendant  on the  28^th  July  2020 and all Consequential  Orders  and that the Defence filed herein  be deemed  as properly filed and served; and

e. That such  further  or other Order  be made  as may seem  just  to this  Honourable  Court.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Affidavit sworn  by Purity  Makori, Advocate on  10.8.2020. The Claimant has  opposed  the Application  by filing a  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by herself  on 24.8.2020.

Vide  the  directions  given  on  14.8.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Respondent  filed  its submissions  on  11.9.2020 while the Claimant  did so on 22.9.2020.

Respondent’s  Contention

The Respondent  has sought  to set aside  the default  judgment entered on  28.7.2020 on the  ground  that it  presented  a memorandum  of Appearance  and Defence  for assessment  and filing  to the Tribunal’s customer care email cooptribunal. customercare@gmail.com but did not  receive  communication  until  4.8.2019 when it was served with Notice  of entry  of judgment  in the matter.

That it is  in the interest  of  justice  for the ex-parte  judgment  to be set aside.

Claimant’s  Contention

The Claimant has opposed  the Application  on the grounds  that by the time  judgment  was entered  in the  matter,  there was  no Appearance  or Defence. As such  the judgment  is regular.

Issues  for determination

The Respondent’s  Application  dated 10.8.2020 has presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Respondent  has established  a proper basis  to warrant  the setting  aside of  the default  judgment  entered  on  28.7.2020;

b. What Orders  are available  in the  circumstance?

Setting aside of default  Judgment

We have  jurisdiction  to set aside a  default  judgment  by dint  of Order  10 Rule  11 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules. The Rule  provides  thus:

“ Where  judgment  has been  entered  under this  Order,  the court may  set aside  or vary such  judgment  and any consequential  Decree  or Order  upon  such  terms  as are  just.”

In the case of  Patel – vs-  East  Africa Cargo  Service  Limited (1974)EA 75, the Court underscored this provision  in the following terms:

“ The main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties  and the  court will  not impose  conditions  on itself to fetter  the wide  discretion  given  to it  by the Rules.”

Before  we can exercise  our jurisdiction  under Order  10 Rule 11  above,  we firstly  have to ascertain  whether  the  default  judgment  is a regular  or irregular  one.  If the  Judgment  is an irregular  one,  then we will  set  it  aside  ex debito  justiciae.

This  was the holding  in the case of  K- Rep  Bank  Limited  -vs-  Segment  Distributors  Limited [2017] eKLR.

The court  in the  case of  Fidelity  Commercial Bank  Limited – vs-  Owen Amos  Ndungu  & Another, HCC.NO. 241/1998  gave  a distinction  between  a regular  and irregular judgment  as follows:

“ A distinction  is drawn  between  regular  and irregular  judgments.  Where summons  to  enter  Appearance  has  been served  and  there is  default  in entry  of Appearance  the ex parte  judgment  entered  in default is regular.  But where  the exparte judgment  sought  to be set  aside  is obtained  either because  there  was no proper  service  or any service  at all, of  the summons  to enter  Appearance, such  judgment  is  irregular  and  the affected Defendant  is entitled  to have  it set aside as of right”

Where  the  default  judgment  is  regular,  then  the Tribunal  has to  consider   if the draft  Defence filed with the Application raises triable issues. This was the holding in the case of James Kanyiita Nderitu & Another  - vs-  Marios  Philotas  Ghikes  & Another [2016]eKLR.  In  the pertinent  part,  the court  held thus:

“ In a regular  default  judgment,  the  Defendant  will have  been duly  served  with  summons  to enter  appearance,  but for one  reason  or another,  he failed  to enter appearance or to file  a Defence,  resulting  in default  judgment.  Such  a Defendant  is entitled  under Order  10 Rule  11  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  to move to  court to  set aside  the default  judgment  and to  grant  him leave  to  defend  the suit.  In such a scenario,  the court has unfettered  discretion  in determining  whether  or not to  set aside  the default judgment  and will  take into  account such  factors  as to the  reason  as for  the failure  of the Defendant  to file his  memorandum  of Appearance,  or  defence,  as the case may be, the length  of  time that has  elapsed  since the default  judgment  was entered; whether  the intended  Defence  raises  triable  issues,  the  respective  prejudice each party  is likely  to suffer whether  on the whole,  it is  in the  interests of  justice  to set  aside   the default judgment.”

Determination

We have  considered  the instant  Application vis-à-vis the opposition  by the  Claimant. What  is apparent  is that the Respondent  was ready   to defend  the claim as early  as  27.7.2020. We have perused the email communication  from the Advocate  on record  for  the Respondent  dated  27.8.2020. In  the pertinent  part,  it read:

“ Dear  Co-operative  Tribunal,  Please find  attached memorandum  of  Appearance  and the statement  of  Defence  for the above files. Kindly  assess  the fees  payable.”

We  have also  perused  the follow –up  email  sent to us on  29.7.2020. It reads :

“ Dear  Co-operative  Tribunal, I am  yet to get  a response  to the filed  below  herein  attached.”

From the  foregoing, it is  apparent  that the Respondent  cannot be wholly  blamed  for not  entering  Appearance  and filing  a Defence  in good time.  The delay  is partially  blamed on the Tribunal as there seems  to have been  no response  to their request   for assessment of the documents  filed.  In the circumstances, we are  satisfied  that the reasons advanced  for not  entering Appearance in good time  are reasonable.

Conclusion

In the  circumstances, we allow  the Respondent’s  Application dated 10.8.2020 in the following  terms:

a. The default  Judgment  entered  on 28.7.2020 is hereby  set aside with no Orders as to  costs.

b. The Respondent  is granted  leave  of  14 days  to file  a statement  of Defence  as well as  witness  statements  and list and bundle  of documents.

c. The Claimant  to file and  serve a Reply  to the Response  as well as supplementary bundle   of documents  and witness  statements ( if need be)

d. Mention  to confirm  compliance  and fixing  a hearing date  on  16.3.2021

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 28TH 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. Chacha Advocate  holding  brief  for  Miss Makori for Respondent: Present

Notice to issue.

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      28.1.2021