Rachuonyo Teachers’s Sacco Society Limited v Mireri (Tribunal Case 222/E334 of 2023) [2025] KECPT 81 (KLR) (30 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KECPT 81 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case 222/E334 of 2023
Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
January 30, 2025
Between
Rachuonyo Teachers’s Sacco Society Limited
Claimant
and
Samuel Mireri
Respondent
Ruling
Notice of Motion Application
1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 20th May, 2024 is brought under Order 36 Rule (1), Order 2 Rule 15(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Section 1A, 1B and 3(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 75 of the Co-operative Societies Act (No.12 of 1997) seeking among others Orders:a.That the Respondent’s Statement of Defence dated 3rd July, 2023 be struck outb.That the Honorable Tribunal be pleased to enter summary judgment for the Claimant against the Respondent as prayed for in the Statement of Claim plus costs and interestc.That the defendant to pay the cost of the Applicationd.That the Honorable Tribunal be pleased to issue any other relief that it may deem fit
2.The Application was supported by the annexed Affidavit of Isaiah Owino Opere on the grounds that:i.There were complaints from members of the Claimant’s Society which necessitated the Commissioner for Cooperative Development to institute inquiry in accordance with Section 58 of the Co-operative Societies Act (No.12 of 1997)ii.The inquiry was done vide an inquiry order dated 28th August, 2017, and that a report was prepared and read to the members of the Claimant’s Society on 16th June 2018 in a Special General Meetingiii.Following the findings of the inquiry, the Commissioner issued to the Respondent a Notice of Intention to Surcharge dated 5th November 2018 surcharging the Respondent for an amount of Kshs. 230, 902.65/= and subsequently the Respondent was surcharged Kshs. 230, 902.65/= as per the surcharge order dated 7th May 2019iv.The Respondent had the opportunity to raise his views or objections to the Commissioner and or to the Honourable Tribunal if at all he was aggrieved by the recommendations contained in the inquiry reportv.That the respondent was duly served with the subject order but refused or neglected or ignored to pay the claimant the seed sums that there has never been a previous or pending or determined appeal before the honorable tribunal filed by the respondent cell phone which was dismissed on technicalitiesvi.That the Respondent owes the Claimant the sum of Kshs. 230, 902.65/= as pleaded in the Statement of Claim and was so indebted after the commencement of the claim and it is only fair and in the interest of justice that summary judgment be entered against the respondent as prayedvii.That the Respondent’s Statement of Defence is a sham and consists of mere denials of the Claimant’s Claim and as such outrightly scandalous, frivolous vexatious, unintelligible and otherwise an abuse of the Honorable Tribunal processviii.That the Respondent is truly indebted to the Claimant in the stated sum of Kshs. 230, 902.65/= and the Statement of Defence offends both the procedural law and substantive law.
3.On 15th July, 2024 this Tribunal gave directions for the Application to be served on all the parties, with further directions given on 14th August, 2024 for the Respondent to file his response to the Application.
4.On 16th September, 2024 this Tribunal gave further Orders for the Respondent to be served personally and as at the date of writing this ruling, the Respondent was yet to file and serve their response.Has the threshold for striking out the Statement of Defence been met?This Application is brought under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows: -The principles for striking out of pleadings were well set out in D T Dobie & Company (K) Ltd v. Muchina [1982] KLR 1 to the effect that no suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless, it discloses no reasonable cause of action and is so weak as to be beyond redemption even through an amendment.The Court of Appeal in the case of Blue Shield Insurance Company Ltd v. Joseph Mboya Oguttu [2009] eKLR restated those principles as follows:
5.This Honorable Tribunal has considered all factors and circumstances relating to this case, including the conduct of the Respondent in not taking any opportunity to respond to the Intention to surcharge, appeal the surcharge before this Honorable Tribunal, or offer a response to the Application to Strike out his Statement of Defence. It is our considered opinion that justice delayed is equal to justice denied and having looked at the Statement of Defence dated 3rd July, 2023 we are persuaded that either the Respondent is not keen on defending the Claim or is keen on delaying the determination of this suit – if it is really true that the Annual General Meeting was chaotic and he was not accorded his natural justice rights to a fair hearing, this Honorable Tribunal give him the opportunity to respond after the Commissioner gave him the same opportunity to, and he hasn't for reasons best known to him.
Final Orders:i.The Notice of Motion Application dated 20th May, 2024 succeeds and summary judgement is entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 230, 902.65/= plus costs and interest at Tribunal rates.ii.The Statement of Defence dated 3rd July, 2023 is struck out.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025.HON. J. MWATSAMA -DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30.1.2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE -MEMBER SIGNED 30.1.2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA -MEMBER SIGNED 30.1.2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI -MEMBER SIGNED 30.1.2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW -MEMBER SIGNED 30.1.2025HON. PAUL AOL -MEMBER SIGNED 30.1.2025Tribunal Clerk MutaiAriga advocate for Claimant- PresentSamuel Mireri advocate for Respondent – No appearanceHON. J. MWATSAMA -DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30.1.2025