[2009] KEHC 1360 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' application because the Co-operative Societies Act, 1997, specifically provides that disputes between members and a co-operative society must first be resolved through the mechanisms established under the Act, namely the Co-operative Tribunal....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1360 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Ayuga & 30 Others; Defendant: Garo Sacco Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 620 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of High Court, Cooperative Societies Disputes, Preliminary Objection, Internal Dispute Resolution
- 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
John Ayuga & 30 Others
Plaintiff
Garo Sacco Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes between members and a co-operative society where internal mechanisms exist under the Co-operative Societies Act.
- 2 Whether the application to adopt the ruling and award as a court order is properly before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' application because the Co-operative Societies Act, 1997, specifically provides that disputes between members and a co-operative society must first be resolved through the mechanisms established under the Act, namely the Co-operative Tribunal. The High Court's jurisdiction is limited to appeals from the Tribunal, and this matter was not such an appeal. Consequently, the application to adopt the ruling and award as a court order was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 17th March, 2009 is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
JOHN AYUGA & 30 OTHERS ………..………..……….. PLAINTIFFS
VS.
GARO SACCO LIMITED ………………………..…..…. DEFENDANT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 17th and filed on 18th March, 2009 the Plaintiffs moved the court for the substantive order that the ruling and Award contained in the Court Order issued in High Court Miscellaneous Application No.620 of 2001 on 23rd January, 2002 be adopted as a court order.
The grounds upon which such order is sought are set out on the face of the application and an affidavit sworn by one John Ayuga is annexed thereto.
The Defendant Garo Sacco Limited opposed the application. A notice of Preliminary Objection has been lodged essentially to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised in the application.
From the material before me, I shall confine myself to issues of law and only one issue of fact.
Unless and until the High Court is seized of a matter between a member or members of a co-operative society on one hand and the co-operative society on the other, it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter. This is because the Co-operative Societies Act of 1997 has express and explicit provisions addressing the internal mechanisms available to resolve the internal or domestic issues in co-operative societies.
Under Sections 76 and 77 of the said Co-operative Societies Act are specific that, only a Co-operative Tribunal established thereunder has jurisdiction to address issues of this nature. The High Court has appellate jurisdiction under section 81 of the same Act. This is not such an appeal and I must hold, as I hereby do, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter at hand.
Having so held, I have no reason to consider the merits attributed thereto but, on the issue of fact I alluded to earlier, the order sought to be registered provides that “the intended sale of investment project be stopped until a new co-operative society to take over the management of the project is formed and which will be bonafide body to decide on the fate of the project.”
I am informed from the bar and also the averment appears in the Notice of Preliminary Objection that, that society has been formed. It is known as Ofafa Maringo Housing Co-operative Society Limited. This is to the advantage of the Plaintiffs who sought the registration of the said order.
Be that as it may, I uphold the Preliminary Objection and hold that I have no jurisdiction to entertain the Notice of Motion dated 17th March, 2009.
The upshot is that the same is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear own costs.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of October, 2009.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE