[2025] KECPT 339 (KLR)
The Tribunal held that the application to reinstate interim orders could not succeed because the substantive application dated 11th July 2024, which formed the basis for the interim orders, had already been dismissed for non-attendance. Without the anchor application, the interim orders could not stand. The Tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 339 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Hioko Githinji; Respondent: Biashara Sacco Society Limited; Respondent: Antotech Auctioneers Agencies
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case CTC.E019 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Interim Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Orders, Injunctive Relief, Statutory Notice Requirements, Loan Security Enforcement
- 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
Lucy Hioko Githinji
Applicant
Biashara Sacco Society Limited
Respondent
Antotech Auctioneers Agencies
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Interim Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal can reinstate interim orders when the substantive application on which they were anchored has already been dismissed.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for the dismissed application.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal held that the application to reinstate interim orders could not succeed because the substantive application dated 11th July 2024, which formed the basis for the interim orders, had already been dismissed for non-attendance. Without the anchor application, the interim orders could not stand. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot grant orders in a vacuum and that the proper procedure would have been to first seek reinstatement of the substantive application before seeking to reinstate any interim orders. Consequently, the application dated 29th October 2024 was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 29th October 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- Mention scheduled for 9th September 2025; notice to issue.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Githinji v Biashara Sacco Society Limited & another (Tribunal Case CTC.E019 of 2024) [2025] KECPT 339 (KLR) (26 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 339 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case CTC.E019 of 2024
Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
June 26, 2025
Between
Lucy Hioko Githinji
Applicant
and
Biashara Sacco Society Limited
1st Respondent
Antotech Auctioneers Agencies
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling dispenses with the Notice of Motion Application dated 29th October 2024. The Application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Claimant herein, LUCY HIOKO GITHINJI, and brought under Order 40 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, section 90, 96 & 103 of the Land Act, 2022 and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Application seeks the following orders:a.Spentb.That this Honourable be pleased to reinstate orders issued on 15th July, 2024. c.Spentd.That cost of this application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds on its face which are inter alia that: upon reading the Application dated 11th July 2024 this Tribunal granted interim orders for the disposal of TETU/IHURURU/284. However, when the matter came for hearing they were directed to file submission for the application dated 11th July 2024. That on 14th October 2024 when the matter came up for mention the Applicant’s advocate tried to log in and by the time he managed to log in the matter had already been mentioned, only for them to later receive a mention notice that the matter had been scheduled for mention on 12th February 2025. That if the orders sought are not granted, the application dated 11th July 2024 will be rendered nugatory.
3. The brief background of this matter is that the claimant filed a Statement of Claim dated 11th July 2024, in which he averred that the 1st Respondent is threatening to dispose off a parcel of land number TETU/IHURURU/284 without proper statutory notice. The land had been used by the Claimant as security for a loan facility she received from the 1st Respondent. The Claimant prays for an injunction against the said sale and also for an order to render true, and proper accounts. The Claimant also filed an application dated 11th July 2024 seeking an injunction pending the determination of the matter. The court issued orders on 15th July 2024 pending the determination of the application of 11th July 2024. On 14th October 2024, the Applicant’s application dated 11th July 2024 was dismissed for non attendance and the interim orders vacated. The Claimant is now seeking to reinstate the orders issued on 15th July 2024
4. The Respondents filed their submissions dated 19th March 2025. In their submissions, the Respondents urge this court to dismiss the Claimant’s application because the Respondent only filed an application to reinstate the orders and not the application which the orders in question rested.
5. The Applicant did not file any submissions.
Analysis 6. This Tribunal has noted the application and the submissions of the Applicant. Upon close look at the application, this Tribunal notes that indeed the Applicant seeks to reinstate the orders that were given pending the determination of an application that was dismissed. The application dated 11th July 2024, on which the orders sought to be reinstated herein rested, was dismissed on 14th October 2014, and the interim orders were vacated. Without the anchor application, the orders cannot stand.
7. The upshot is that the application dated 29th October 2024 is hereby dismissed with costs.
Mention on 9. 9.2025. Notice to issue
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 26. 6.2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 26. 6.2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 26. 6.2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 26. 6.2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 26. 6.2025HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 26. 6.2025TRIBUNAL CLERK GECHIKOMs. Maina advocate holding brief for Mr. Ng’ang’a Munene advocate for the Respondent.Kungu Josphat advocate for Claimant- No appearanceHON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 26. 6.2025