Lucy Moraa Sure v Orient Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 279 (KLR)

Lucy Moraa Sure v Orient Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 279 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.397 OF 2020

LUCY MORAA SURE.......................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

ORIENT SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED...RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The Application Notice of Motion dated 2.3.2021 is for determination and has been brought under  Order   Rule 15 (1) b ( c) and d and Section  1A, 1B, and 3A of the  Civil Procedure  Act and all enabling provisions  of the Law.

The Application  seeks  for Orders:

a. The Memorandum of Response dated  6th  November, 2020 be struck out.

b. In the alternative, Summary Judgment be entered against the Defendant for a sum of Kshs.456,000/=

c. That costs of the Application and the suit be provided for.

2. The Application is premised on the grounds on the face of the  Application and Affidavit in support of  Lucy  Moraa Sure where she stated.

The Memorandum of Response contains mere denials and the same ought to be strike out.

The Respondent  has not  brought  any documents  and or  evidence  to challenge  or support   its  allegations  in admission to challenge  the Statement  of Claim.

That  the Admission  is only  meant  to delay  the fair  trial  of the action  and is an abuse  of the court process  and  prays  for the Respondent Defence  to be struck  out  and judgment  be entered  in favour  of the  Claimant  in the  interest  of  justice.

3. The Respondent  filed a Replying Affidavit  in opposition  to the Application  and stated  the Memorandum  of Response  had  raised  triable   issues  which  were worth  going  to trial.

There were facts and records that ought to be looked into to wit the Respondent’s former  Management  Committee was removed from office in December  2016 had declared fictious  dividends and the members were paid including the Claimant which amount was later recommended by an audit report that the same was to be recovered from all members.

The Respondent  had filed an Affidavit  of means acknowledging  that it  owes  refundable  deposits to its  members  and  it had  registered  to be allowed to repay  via  installments  to enable  them remain  a float.

That  in any  case  for summary  judgment  to be  entered  on admission  the same  must be  clear and unequivocal  which  is not  the case.

If judgment on admission is entered against the Respondent the Respondent will effectively be driven from the seat  of justice  without  trial.

4. That  the right  to be heard  is a fundamental  right  that must  not be  denied  to enable the Respondent  ventilate  its position  and to be  accorded  the chance  to defend  the suit.  The grant of Orders sought in the  Application would greatly prejudice the Respondent for the fact the  Applicant is guilty of inequitable delay as deponed and the Respondent is willing to refund the shares in instalments as per its  Affidavit of means dated 17.12.2020 and thus not entitled to the exercise of this  Honourable Tribunal’s discretion in their favour.

The parties  filed  written submissions in a bid  to  dispense  off  with the  Application  the Respondent  filed  their submissions  dated  21.5.2021 on  24.5.2021 and the  Claimant/Applicant filed  their submissions  dated  28.4.2021 filed on  29.4.2021.

Analysis

5. Order   13 Rule  2 Civil procedure  Rule  2010 clearly  states :

“ Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to,  without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may upon such application make such order,  or give such judgment, as the court may think just. “

The Respondent stated the Respondent contesting the amount is an issue to be determined.

The issues  to be determined  are thus:

Issue one:

Whether the Defence raise triable issue?

6. The principle  that guide  the court  in determining  whether  to struck out  a pleading  were set  out  in the case of   DT Dobie  &  company  (Kenya)  Limited – vs-  Joseph  Mbaria  Muchina  and Another  CA  37  of  1978 [1980]eKLR.

Madan  JA  stated:

“...the court  ought  to act  very cautiously and carefully  and consider  all facts  of the case  without  embarking  upon  a trial thereof,  before  dismissing  a case  for not disclosing   a reasonable  case of action  on being  otherwise  an abuse   of the process  of the court.....”

The case  by Respondent  in their  submissions Transcend  Media  Group Limited  - vs-  IEBC[2015] eKLR court held:

“... striking  out of a  case  and  in the process,  deprive  a  party  of the opportunity  to present  their case  has  been held  over and  over  the years  to be a  draconian  measure which  ought  to be  eyed  only  as a last resort and even  the only in the  clearest  of  case.”

To this end we are satisfied that indeed the  Applicant has a valid claim.

The Defence does not raise valid issues or any triable issue as it were.

It denies  owing  the Claimant Kshs.456,000/= and  court the same time  stated  amount owed  to Claimant was affected  due to recovery  of  unearthed  dividends  paid  to its  members  and seeks  to make  payment  via  instalments.

In case  of National  Bank  of Kenya  - vs-  Daniel  Opande  Asnani[2002] eKLR

“ The law  is now  settled and that  is the admission  upon which  a court  of law will  act to  strike  out a  Defence  and enter  judgment  must  be clear  and unambiguous.

The same admission need not be in the pleadings only. It can be discerned in any other way….I am satisfied that the debt herein had been admitted ….I do allow  the Application “

With  the above  we are  also  satisfied  that the  admission  by the mere fact  the Respondents  are seeking  to pay  via installments.

7. The upshot  of the above  is that  the Application  dated 2.3.2021 is found  to be  with  merit  in terms of prayer  2- summary judgment  be entered  against  the Respondent  for a sum  of Kshs.456,000/= plus  costs  and interest  in the  suit.

Application is allowed in terms of prayer b with costs.

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

Chacha  holding  for Makori  for Claimant/Applicant Present

Hon. B. Kimemia                  Chairperson                Signed      2.9.2021
 

▲ To the top