Flexable Solutions v The General Council, Programme for Christian Muslim Relations in Africa (PROCMURA) & Joy Wandabwa
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction because neither the Claimant nor the Respondents are co-operative societies and the dispute does not fall within section 76 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Since jurisdiction is foundational and cannot be created by the parties’ characterization of the dispute as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KECOPT 347 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: FLEXABLE SOLUTIONS; 1st Respondent/applicant: THE GENERAL COUNCIL, PROGRAMME FOR CHRISTIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS IN AFRICA (PROCMURA); 2nd Respondent/applicant: JOY WANDABWA
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E320 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Co Operative Tribunal Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Claim for Want of Jurisdiction / Ruling on Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed in effect; claim terminated for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- ["J Mwatsama", "B Sawe", "F Lotuiya", "PO Aol", "M Chesikaw"]
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Tribunal Jurisdiction Under Section 76 Cooperative Societies Act, Dispute Outside Co Operative Society Framework, Doctrine That Jurisdiction Is Everything
- 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
FLEXABLE SOLUTIONS
Claimant/respondent
THE GENERAL COUNCIL, PROGRAMME FOR CHRISTIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS IN AFRICA (PROCMURA)
1st Respondent/applicant
JOY WANDABWA
2nd Respondent/applicant
Procedural Posture
Co Operative Tribunal Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Claim for Want of Jurisdiction / Ruling on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Co-operative Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim
- 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for being outside section 76 of the Cooperative Societies Act
- 3 Whether the fact that the dispute is described as commercial can confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction because neither the Claimant nor the Respondents are co-operative societies and the dispute does not fall within section 76 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Since jurisdiction is foundational and cannot be created by the parties’ characterization of the dispute as commercial, the Tribunal had to down its tools and terminate the proceedings.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in effect; claim terminated for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The Co-operative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim.
- The Tribunal downed its tools.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TRIBUNAL CASE NO. E320 OF 2026** **(Coram: Hon. J. Mwatsama- Chairperson, Hon. B. Sawe- Member, Hon. F. Lotuiya- Member, Hon. M. Chesikaw- Member and Hon. P. Aol- Member.)** **FLEXABLE SOLUTIONS…………….…..………..CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT** ***VERSUS*** **THE GENERAL COUNCIL, PROGRAMME FOR CHRISTIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS IN AFRICA (PROCMURA) …. 1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT** **JOY WANDABWA …………………..…… 2ND RESPONDENT/APPLICANT** **RULING** 1. The Application for determination is Notice of Motion dated 10th July, 2026 brought under *Order 15 Rule 1a of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap.21 of the Laws of Kenya; Rule 11 (1) of the Cooperative Tribunal (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2009.* The Application seeks for the following Orders: 1. **That the Statement of Claim and the entire claim herein be struck out.** 2. **That the Claimant be ordered to pay the cost of the claim.** The same is made on the ground: 1. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter as it is outside the scope of Section 76 Cooperative Societies Act Cap.490 2. Neither the Claimant nor the Respondent are Co-operative Societies. 3. 1st Respondent is a society registered under the Societies Act. 4. The Claimant/Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Bade Desmond Christopher on 14th August 2026 opposing the Application. He however, in paragraph 4 states and acknowledges that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited by Section 76 Cooperative Societies Act, Cap 490. He also acknowledges that neither Claimant or Respondent are registered under Cooperative Societies Act. Despite this, the Claimant/Respondent states their claim should not be struck out but Tribunal should only down its tools. Claimant/Respondent states striking out pleadings is draconian as the claim before the Tribunal is a *bona fide commucial* dispute. No written submissions were filed as at the time of writing this ruling despite the directions given. 1. From the foregoing it is clear the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Section 76 Cooperative Societies Act provides for: ***“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 purpose 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”.*** The Claimant and Respondent are not societies as per the description of the Cooperative Societies Act. There is no other way to protect the Claimant if at all despite their pleas that there is a valid dispute between the parties. We cannot dwelve into issues that are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and shall not belabour the point. 1. In the case of **Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S”-vs- Caltex oil (Kenya) Ltd 1989.** ***“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidences. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction”.*** We also look into the case of **Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another -vs- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2012]** where it was stated a court’s jurisdiction flows strictly from the constitution of Kenya or written legislation. As such the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is derived from Cooperative Societies Act Cap 490. **UPSHOT** The Cooperative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim. We down our tools. File closed. Ruling signed, dated and delivered *virtually* at **Nairobi** this **10th** day of **September, 2026.** **Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed** **10.9.2026** **Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 10.9.2026** **Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 10.9.2026** **Hon. Paul Aol Member Signed 10.9.2026** **Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 10.9.2026** **Tribunal Clerk J. Mutai** Babu Advocate holding brief for Mr. Olwalo Advocate for the Claimant/Respondent. Kuloba Advocate for the Respondent/Applicant – No appearance. **Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed 10.9.2026**