Joseph Wahome Kamau, Faith Tita Adu, Stella Wanjiru Njeru, Patrick Cheruiyot Mutai, Consolata Ngendo Njihia, Robert Kahiga Munene & Jane Akinyi Ojijo v Daniel Mithamo Kiongo [2021] KECPT 274 (KLR)

Joseph Wahome Kamau, Faith Tita Adu, Stella Wanjiru Njeru, Patrick Cheruiyot Mutai, Consolata Ngendo Njihia, Robert Kahiga Munene & Jane Akinyi Ojijo v Daniel Mithamo Kiongo [2021] KECPT 274 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.475 OF 2020

JOSEPH  WAHOME  KAMAU............1ST  CLAIMANT

FAITH  TITA ADU..................................2ND CLAIMANT

STELLA  WANJIRU  NJERU................3RD CLAIMANT

PATRICK  CHERUIYOT  MUTAI .......4TH CLAIMANT

CONSOLATA NGENDO  NJIHIA..........5TH CLAIMANT

ROBERT KAHIGA  MUNENE...............6TH CLAIMANT

JANE AKINYI OJIJO..............................7TH CLAIMANT

VERSUS

DANIEL MITHAMO KIONGO................RESPONDENT

RULING

The Claimants were members of Waumini Sacco Society  Limited(hereinafter, “Sacco”).

They allege to have  guaranteed  the  Respondent  over  a loan of Kshs. 1,114,939.38/=  which  was deducted  from  the deposits   of the Claimants due to an act  of default by  the Respondent.

The Claimants filed a Statement of Claim  over  the deductions, which  Statement of Claim  is dated 30th November, 2020. The Respondent  entered Appearance  on  22nd  December, 2020 and filed  an Amended  Notice of  Preliminary  Objection  dated  17th February  2021.

This Ruling   is in terms  of the  Preliminary Objection raised  by the Respondent  on two grounds:

a. That the  Honorable  tribunal  lacks jurisdiction  to hear  and determine  this matter,  hence  the suit  should  be struck  out  with costs; and

b. The entire suit is  fatally  defective  and ought  to be  struck  out.

Parties  proceeded  by way  of written  submissions, which  we have  considered  extensively.

Respondent’s  Case

The Respondent  argues  that the  entire  suit  is defective  due to  violation  of Order  4 Rule  2  of  the Civil Procedure Act  Rules  201 on High Court  argues  that the  verifying  Affidavit  filed  in accompaniment  of the Statement of Claim  was not  commissioned  as is required  by Section   5  of  the  Oaths  and  Statutory  declarations  Act.

The Respondent has  relied   on the  case of  Rajput  - vs-  Barclays  Bank  of Kenya and  3 others [2014] eKLR 393. The Respondent  concludes  by  implore  this  Tribunal to strike   out  the  suit  for failing  to adhere  to Order  4  Rule  2.

The Claimants have  conceded   that  jurisdiction  is everything. They  have also  reiterated  that the   subject  matter  of this  case  concerns  a disputes between  past Members  of the Sacco, and   as such  it falls  under  the provisions of Section  76  of the Co-operative Societies Act. They  have  referred  to  a myriad of cases,  which  we have  also considered.

On the issue  of defectiveness  of the  Claim,  the Chairman  have  positioned  that  the said Statement of Claim  was indeed  accompanied  by a Verifying  Affidavit   which  was commissioned  by Henry  Gachuna,  an Advocate  of the  High Court  and Commissioner  of Oaths. The said  Affidavit  was consequently filed  alongside  the Statement  of Claim  on the 2nd December, 2020.

The Claimants  conclude  that the Preliminary  Objection  is frivolous,  unfounded and lack  merit,  and  same  to be dismissed  with costs.

Issues  for determination

This Tribunal  has framed  the following  as issues  necessary  for determination.

a. Whether  the Preliminary Objection  is valid.

b. Whether  the Tribunal  is  benefit of jurisdiction  to determine  the Claim.

c. Whether  the Statement  of  Claim  is fatally  defective.

d. Who bears  the costs  of  the Preliminary Objection.

We  will  now  dissect  the issues.

a. Whether  the Preliminary  Objection  is valid.

A Preliminary  Objection  must  address  it to pure point of law.  It should  be,  but that  can  determine  the case  at once, if  it is argued  on the assumption  that  all  the facts  pleaded  are correct.  It cannot  be raised  when a fact  is subject  to ascertainment,  or  if what  is sought  calls  for judicial  discretion.  This  was  the ratio  decidevidi is the  landmark  case  of Mukisa  Biscuits  Manufacturing  Company Limited  - vs-  West End  Distributors  [1969] EA 696.

The Preliminary  Objection  in this  case raises  the question  of validity  of pleadings,  and if this  is to be  determined  in the affirmative,  the Tribunal  will strike  out the said  pleading  and if this  is to be  determined in the affirmative,  the Tribunal  will strike   out  the said pleading,  and thus  determine  the claim  at once.  The Preliminary  Objection  also list  the particulars  under  which  the objection  is raised,  and  this satisfies  the  requirements of  raising  a Preliminary Objection.

This Tribunal  is satisfied  that  the Preliminary Objection  is justiciable, and  is thus valid.

b. Whether  the tribunal  has jurisdiction

The claim  concerns  former  members  of the Sacco,  one of whom  was guaranteed  by the  others. Section  76  of the Co-operative Societies  Act  Provides as follows:

“ 1. If any dispute  concerning  the business  of a Co-operative  society arises:

a. Among  members, past  members and persons  claiming  through  members, past  members and deceased members; or

b. Between  members,  past members  or deceased  members, and  the society, its  committee  or any officer  of the society; or

c. Between  the Society  and any other  Co-operative  Society, it shall  be referred  to the Tribunal.

2. a dispute  for the purposes  of  this section  shall include-

a. a claim by a Co-operative  Society  for any  debt  or demand  due to  it  from a member  or past  member,  or from  the nominee  or personal  representative  of a deceased member,  whether  such  debt  or  demand  is admitted  or not; or

b.  a claim by a member, past member or the  nominee or personal  representative of a deceased member for any  debt  or demand  due  from a Co-operative  Society, whether  such debt  or demand  is admitted or not;

c. a claim  by a Sacco Society  against  a refusal  to grant  or a revocation  of licence  or any other  due,  from the authority.”

It is  therefore  clear  that this  case  is in line  with Section  76 (1) (a) of the  Co-operative Societies  Act,  and the Tribunal  is thus  clothed  with jurisdiction  thereon.

We thus  find that  this Tribunal  has jurisdiction  to hear   and determine  the claim. This ground  of the Preliminary  Objection  must therefore  fail.

c. Whether  the Statement of Claim  is fatally  defective

The evidence  on record  shows that  the Statement  of Claim  was filed  on 2nd  December 2020,  and  at the time  of  filing, the  same  was accompanied  by an  Affidavit  dated 30th November,  2020.  The Affidavit  is stamped  as  commissioned  by Henry  Gachuba, an Advocate  and Commissioner  of Oaths.

It is thus clear  that  the claim  has been  properly instituted  before  his  tribunal, in his ……Order 4 Rule  2  of the Civil Procedure Act.

In any event,  even  if the Affidavit  was not  stamped  as commissioned,  the remedy  available would  be to require  the Claimant to comply,  rather than  strike out the entire  suit.  The Civil Procedure Act and  appurtenant unless  envisage  substantive  justice  served  upon  parties,  and striking out  pleadings when  they  could  be rectified  and justice  served.

This  ground of the Preliminary Objection suffers  the same  fate of failure.

Costs

The cost  follow the event.  The Respondent  has  set the parties  to wild  goose  chase,  delaying the matter. He must  be condemned  to pay  costs,  and we  so order.

Orders

We order  as follows:

a. The Notice  of Preliminary  Objection  dated 17th  February  2021 fails.

b. The Respondent  to pay  costs  to the  Claimant.

c. Mention  for Pre-trial  directions  on 9.11.2021.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND  DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      2.9.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama              Deputy Chairperson  Signed      2.9.2021

Mr. Gitonga Kamiti             Member                       Signed      2.9.2021

Mr. B. Akusala                      Member                       Signed      2.9.2021

Tribunal Clerk                       R. Leweri            

Onyango  for Claimant: Present

No appearance  for Respondent

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      2.9.2021

▲ To the top