[2022] KECPT 180 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent was in possession of the subject motor vehicle KCA 719P. The evidence showed that the vehicle was not registered in the respondent's name, and the respondent had reported its loss to the police, with no contrary evidence provided by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KECPT 180 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Biashara Sacco Soc Ltd; Respondent: Charles Kuria Ngari
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- M Mwatsama
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Loan Security, Joint Ownership of Property, Possession of Collateral
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Biashara Sacco Soc Ltd
Applicant
Charles Kuria Ngari
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is in possession of motor vehicle KCA 719P.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the motor vehicle pending determination of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent was in possession of the subject motor vehicle KCA 719P. The evidence showed that the vehicle was not registered in the respondent's name, and the respondent had reported its loss to the police, with no contrary evidence provided by the applicant. As such, the applicant did not meet the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction or orders for production of the vehicle. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated September 17, 2019 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Biashara Sacco Soc Ltd v Ngari (Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2019) [2022] KECPT 180 (KLR) (3 February 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KECPT 180 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2019
M Mwatsama, Vice Chair
February 3, 2022
Between
Biashara Sacco Soc Ltd
Claimant
and
Charles Kuria Ngari
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before the tribunal for determination is dated September 17, 19. The same is brought under order 40 Rule 1,2, and 3 Civil Procedure Rules 2010 sec 1A and 1B Civil Procedure Act and sec 78 Co-operative Societies Act cap 490 Laws of Kenya.The Application sought for orders;-a)That this honourable court be pleased to certify the current application as extremely urgent and that the same may be heard ex parte;b)That, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a temporary order of injunction against the respondent/defendant from in any manner whatsoever transferring, parting possession and /or alienating motor vehicle KCA 719P owned by the respondent jointly with the applicant to any third party whatsoever until this matter is heard and determined;c)That, in addition to prayer 2 above, this honourable court do issue prosecution orders against the defendant that the motor vehicle KCA 719P be produced for safe keeping pending the hearing and final determination of this application;d)That, the costs of this application be borne by the respondents.The application is supported by the grounds on the face of the application and Supporting Affidavit of Joseph Kamau Nyamuchu.The applicant’s avers that the motor vehicle KCA 719P forms part of financial security between the parties and is jointly register between the parties.The respondent is in default of a loan with an outstanding balance of kshs 381,208. 31. The respondent has hidden the motor vehicle and denied the applicant its rights under the loan against and there is danger for the motor vehicle to be passed on to a 3rd party.
2. The respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on September 8, 21. On September 28, 21 stating the application is full of lies and half truth.That the applicant is aware the respondent does not have the subject motor vehicle and its loss is subject to police investigators vide OB no 50/9/4/2019. The applicant advanced the monies and the motor vehicle was to be registered in their joint names. The applicant thus took the original log books and all facilitating documents.He further states he kept up with the instalments until he got incarcerated and fell in arrears and the applicant took the motor vehicle until he cleared the arrears.That the motor vehicle was released to his wife who continued paying instalments until the registered owner took back her vehicle and this was reported to the applicant.The said motor vehicle is not in his possession. He cannot produce what he does not have.
3. Parties were ordered to file written submissions with the applicants filing their submissions dated October 25, 21 on November 3, 21 and the respondent filing their written submissions dated November 10, 21 on November 11, 21. The issue for determination is just one;Whether the respondent is in possession of motor vehicle KCA 719P?The applicants asset the respondent is hiding the subject motor vehicle which was among the securities given for the loan advanced to the respondent.That the loan remains unpaid and an attempt to realize the security has been difficult known respondent has hidden the motor vehicle KCA 719P .The respondent on their end avers the applicant’s breach the loan terms. They were to register the motor vehicle in both names to secure the loan and the same was not done.A report was done to the police via OB no 50/9/4/2019 to which the applicant have not denied or placed contrary evidence of the respondent and thus the orders sought.The applicant has not indicated whether the motor vehicle was registered in both the applicant’s and respondent’s name as should have been.The respondent further avers the motor vehicle was not in registered in his name but was pending transfer.We thus are convinced that the subject motor vehicle KCA 719P is not in possession.
4. The application dated September 17, 2019 is dismissed with order as to costs.
SIGNEDHON MJENI MWATSAMADEPUTY CHAIRPERSON3/2/22