[2024] KECPT 934 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 934 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the appellant had been afforded an opportunity to interrogate the makers of the inquiry report when it was tabled before the annual general meeting and during the show cause process prior to the issuance of the surcharge order. The tribunal noted that the appellant received a notice of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 934 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Emmanuel Ngaru Gituhu; Respondent: Orient Sacco Society Limited; Interested Party: Commissioner for Cooperatives
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Appeal 21 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Cooperative Societies Inquiries, Surcharge Orders, Right to Fair Hearing, Cross Examination of Reports
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Cooperative Societies Inquiries Surcharge Orders Right to Fair Hearing Cross Examination of Reports

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Ngaru Gituhu

Appellant

Orient Sacco Society Limited

Respondent

Commissioner for Cooperatives

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal should summon the makers of the inquiry report for cross-examination as requested by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was accorded a fair opportunity to interrogate the inquiry report and respond to the surcharge order.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the appellant had been afforded an opportunity to interrogate the makers of the inquiry report when it was tabled before the annual general meeting and during the show cause process prior to the issuance of the surcharge order. The tribunal noted that the appellant received a notice of intention to surcharge, responded to it, and was thus accorded due process. The tribunal held that summoning the makers of the inquiry report for cross-examination at this stage would be futile, especially in the absence of the underlying documentation used to generate the report. The application was therefore dismissed as the appellant's right to a fair hearing had not been violated.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated 1st September 2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Appellant granted 14 days to file and serve Amended Memorandum of Appeal.