Concorde Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited v George Huma [2021] eKLR

Concorde Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited v George Huma [2021] eKLR

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO. 279 OF 2020

CONCORDE  SAVINGS  AND CREDIT                                                                                    

COOPERATIVE  SOCIETY  LIMITED...............................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

GEORGE  HUMA...............................................................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Application  for determination  is dated 11.6.2021 and it is  brought  under Section  3A, 8(b) and 100  of Civil Procedure  Act  Cap  21,  Order  1A, 1B, 40 & 45 of the Civil Procedure  Rule  and all other  enabling  provisions  of the law.

The  Order sought  are:

1. That the  Application  herein  be certified  as urgent  and heard  ex-parte  on the first  instance.

2. That the Honorable  court be  pleased  to grant  stay  and issue  temporary  order of  injunction  restraining  the Plaintiff/Applicant,  his servants and/or  agents from carrying  away  the Plaintiff  goods  listed  in the  proclamation  notice  dated  9.6.2021 that is,  motor vehicle  registration  No. KAK 134V,  seven seater sofa set,  dining table  with six  seats, one floor  carpet,  T.V set,  one gas cylinder,  one  coffee  table,  one home theatre  system  pending  inter-parties  hearing  of the Application

3. That  the costs  of this Application  be provided for.

The same  is premised  on the grounds  on the  face of  the Application and affidavit  in support  of George  Huma  sworn  on 11.6.2021  to  wit  he states  he is Claimant  in the present  suit  and filed  an Application  for review  of court orders. That  he has  not been  heard  on merit  and his  Advocate inadvertent  did not  attach  a draft  defence. That  he has a good defence  and he has  an autistic child who  will  get affected  if the surrounding  is changed.

2.  There  is another  Application  by the Applicant/  Respondent Notice of  Motion  dated  9.6.2021 brought  under Section  3A, 80 (b)  and 100 Civil Procedure Act  Cap  21,  Order  1A,  1B,  and  45  Civil Procedure  Rule  2010 seeking for  orders

i. Spent

ii. That  there  was a mix-up in the sense  that somehow   the court  was not furnished  with the Defendant’s draft  defence.

iii. That the mistake  was inadvertent  for it is  noteworthy that the Respondents  do acknowledge  to have received  our draft  defence  but the same  was somehow  absent  in the documents filed in  court.

iv. That  once the Defendant’s  counsel  noted the mistake, he  immediately  furnished  the court  with a draft  defence  as requested  in an  attempt  to rectify  the said  mistake.

v. That  the Applicant  is keen  on  prosecuting  his case  and feels  aggrieved  by the  decision  to dismiss  his Application  dated 18.12.2020 on the basis  of technicalities.

The same  is supported  by the  Affidavit  of George Huma  sworn on  9.6.2021 to wit  he stated  the decree holder  has proclaimed  his goods  as annexed  GH-1. That  the adverse  Ruling was  made  when the court  did not  have full  facts  pertaining  the matter.

That they  request  for the Ruling  of 27.5.2021 to be  stayed  and set aside  that the  Application  earlier  filed  had a draft  defence  which was  acknowledged  by the Advocates for the Claimant filed  on  5.3.2021. that  they are  at loss  how  the  documents  draft  defence  failed  to be submitted.

3. The Plaintiff/Respondent  filed  Grounds  of Opposition  dated  29.6.2021 filed  on even  date  to which  they state:

(i) The Application  is res judicata the Ruling  of this Honourable  Tribunal  ( Hon.  B. Kimemia – chairperson) dated  27th  May  2021 in CTC. NO. 279 OF 2020.

(ii) If the  Application  is allowed,  it will cause  injustice  to the Plaintiff/Respondent.

(iii) The Application  is incompetent, misconceived, unfounded, without  merit, bad in law  and an abuse  of the court  process  and ought  to be dismissed with costs.

The Applicant  filed a  response  to the Grounds  of Opposition dated 8.7.2021 together with  Supplementary  Affidavit  of George  Huma  sworn  on 8.7.2021 and state  there was  a mix up  as to why  a Draft  Defence  was not  filed  earlier  in Affidavit  dated  3.3.2021.

The Claimant/Respondent  are not being fair  to the Respondent stating  there was  no Draft  Defence  yet in  Paragraph  II of Replying Affidavit  dated  3.8.2021 they challenged   the contents  of the Draft Defence.

That justice  is n9ot dispensed  with by  determining  cases  hurriedly  but for both  parties  to be able  to ventilate  on the contentious issues.

4. The Respondent  filed their written submissions  dated  15.7.2021  and Claimant had not  filed  their submissions  as of the date  of this Ruling.

We shall  not go into  the merits  of an irregular  and or regular  judgment as  the same  was handled  in the earlier  Application  whose Ruling  was delivered  on 27.5.2021.

The issue that  arises  was there  a Draft  Defence  in the initial  Application?

In the documents/pleadings  filed  in court the same  was not  on record.

However we cannot  turn a blind  eye  to the fact  that the Claimant/Respondent did  in their Replying Affidavit  the Application  dated 18.12.2020 allude  to a “ draft  defence” and in  paragraph II did  in their Replying  Affidavit of Rosemary  Aseka  sworn  on 3.3.2021  did state:

That  in response  to paragraph  9 of  the Supporting  Affidavit,  I reiterate  the contents  of paragraphs  5,6,7,8,9 and 10 herein  and aver  that  assuming  setting  aside  judgment  was an option, the same  should  not be  done  as there  is the draft  defence  lacks  merit  as it  consists  of mere denials.”

This clearly  indicates  there was  a draft  defence attached  to the Application  which  unfortunately  the Tribunal  was not  privy  to.

We have  perused  the said  Draft  Defence and thus find  it  does  not contain mere denials and will for  the  interest  of justice  allow  the Application  dated  9.6.2021 and review  our ruling delivered  on  27.5.2021.

1.   To this end, allow  the application  dated 9.6.2021 and set aside  the orders  of ruling dated  27.5.2021.

2. The application  dated 11.6.2021  stays the proclamation  notice  dated  9.6.2021.

3. The Respondent  leave  to file and  serve  defence, witness statements  and documents  21 days  from date  of this ruling  without  fail.

4. Mention  for Pre-trial  directions.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH   DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  4.11.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson Signed  4.11.2021

Mr. Gitonga Kamiti  Member   Signed  4.11.2021

Mr. B. Akusala   Member   Signed  4.11.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki   Member   Signed  4.11.2021

Tribunal Clerk   R. Leweri

No appearance  by both parties.

Hon. J. Mwatsama  Deputy Chairperson Signed  4.11.2021

▲ To the top