https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/226

Karanja v Kuria & 2 others (Tribunal Case E004 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 226 (KLR) (11 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 226 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E004 of 2025 J Mwatsama, Ag Chair, B Sawe, Chair, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members May 11, 2026 Between David Karanja Claimant and Benard Kuria 1st Respondent Twins Crossroad Savings & Credit Society Limited 2nd Respondent Huruma Matatu Sacco Limited 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Tribunal for determination is a Notice of Motion Application dated 1st July 2025 filed by the Claimant pursuant to Section 10 of the Magistrate’s Court Act 2015, Section 3, 3A and Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule1of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. 2.The Application is seeking for the following orders:1.Spent2.That this Tribunal be pleased to summon the contemnor, the 1st Respondent to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for a period of six months for blatantly disobeying this Tribunal’s orders issued on 13/5/2025.3.That the contemnor be arrested and committed to civil jail for a term not exceeding six months.4.That this Tribunal to deny the contemnor and or their recognized agent’s audience in the Tribunal until they purge the contempt.5.That this Tribunal be pleased to issue any such or further order in respect of the said contempt as may be necessary for the ends of justice to be met and towards protection of the dignity and authority of the court and the rule of law.6.Cost of this Application to be borne by the contemnor. 3.The Application is supported by an Affidavit sworn by David Karanja the Claimant who stated that this Tribunal issued orders on 13/5/2025 to the Respondents to reinstate the Claimants motor vehicle registration No. KBA390W which had been earlier withdrawn from operations pending formal proof hearing that was scheduled to take place on 20/8/2025. 4.The Claimant’s Application further averred that despite being served with the orders on 4/6/2025 the 1st Respondent who is the chairman of the 2nd Respondent refused to reinstate the motor vehicle in contravention of the Tribunal’s order. 5.The Claimant concluded by stating that the disobedience of the Respondents amounts to contempt of the court order and argued out that the 1st Respondent be committed to civil jail for six (6) months or such other period that the Tribunal deems appropriate. Response. 6.In a Replying Affidavit dated 8th July 2025 the 1st Respondent confirmed that they had suspended the motor vehicle Registration No. KBA390W that belonged to the Claimant because of failure to comply with the NTSA regulations. However, immediately they received the Tribunals orders, the Sacco informed the Claimant to comply with the following requirements:a.To produce a valid inspection certificate from the relevant authorities.b.To ensure that the Motor Vehicle has a current Road Service License (RSL)c.To comply with the Sacco savings policy and pay all the applicable operational fees and charges. 7.The Respondent contended that on the date of filling the Notice of Motion Application that is on 1st July2025, the Claimant had not taken the motor vehicle for inspection or provided the Sacco with the required documentation to facilitate compliance and processing of the Road Service License (RSL). 8.In conclusion the Respondent denied that they are not in contempt of the Tribunals orders because the Claimant did not provide the documents that he was asked to forward to the Sacco. The Respondents further stated that it is a requirement within their by-laws that it is the responsibility of a member to take his/her motor vehicle for inspection but not the responsibility of the Sacco or any officer of the Sacco. Tribunal’s Directions. 9.The parties agreed to disposed this matter by way of written submissions. Subsequently, on 25/8/2025 the Tribunal directed the Claimant to file and serve his written submissions within 14 days from the date herein and granted the Respondents 14 days to file and serve their written submissions upon service by the Claimant. Analysis. 10.We have considered the grounds of the Notice of Motion Application dated 1/7/2025 together with the averments in the Supporting Affidavit of the Claimants, we have further considered the 1st Respondents Replying Affidavit dated 8/7/2025, the rival submissions and the oral hearing testimonies by the parties recorded in the Tribunals file on 20/8/2025.Subsequently we distilled one issue for our determination that is:i.Whether the 1st and the 2nd Respondent disobeyed this tribunal orders issued on 13/5/2025 or not? Determination. Whether the 1st and the 2nd Respondents disobeyed this Tribunals orders issued on 13/5/2025 11.To begin with, it is important to search for the meaning of the term contempt as the court quoted in the case of KAR vs JR (Matrimonial Cause E030 of 2022) where the High court quoted Black law dictionary 7th Edition to define contempt of court as:“The failure to obey a court order that was issued for another party’s benefit.A civil contempt proceeding is coercive or remedial in nature. The usual sanction is to confine the contemnor until he or she complies with the court order”. 12.In furtherance of the above definition, the court in the Case of Ringera & 2 Others vs Muite & 10 Others - suit No.1330 of 1991 set out conditions upon which a finding of contempt may exist. That is:a.That there must be an existing court order capable of being disobeyed.b.The alleged contemnor must have been made aware of the existence of the court order.c.There must be shown to be a breach (disobedience) of the said order. 13.In the instant case, the 1st Respondent in his Replying Affidavit dated 8/7/2025 acknowledged that they received the order from the Tribunal dated 13/5/2025 which was served upon them on 4/6/2025, therefore there is no dispute about their being aware of the existence of the Tribunals order. 14.In an effort to comply with the order, the 1st Respondent stated under paragraph 5 of his Replying Affidavit earlier mentioned that they informed the Claimant to take his motor vehicle for inspection in order to obtain an inspection certificate in order to enable the Sacco to process the Road service License for him.In our view, condition no. (a) and (b) above are answered. 15.Turning to the condition on disobedience, the Respondents denied ever disobeying the order and when we analyze the sequence of events, we note that while the Respondents were waiting for the documentations from the Claimant to process the Road Service License for him, he went ahead to file the instant Notice of Motion.However, there is no record in the Tribunal’s file to show when the Claimant was asked by the Respondents to avail the documents to the Sacco neither is there a record to show when the Claimant availed the documents. 16.Even then, on the mention date of 20/8/2025, the Respondents informed the Tribunal that they complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 13/5/2025 by reinstating the Claimants motor vehicle No, KBA390W on 2/8/2025 and that it is now operational.This was confirmed by the Respondent. 17.On the basis of the above and despite the pending of this ruling for the Notice of Motion Application dated 1/7/2025, the Tribunal directed that the case be marked as compromised subject to costs. 18.Given that the Respondents have complied with the order and the Claimant has confirmed that his motor vehicle has been reinstated and given that the relationship between the member (Claimant) and his Sacco has been restored to the extent that they have resumed their business relationship, the Tribunal finds no valid reason to hold the 1st and the 2nd Respondents in contempt.We therefore dismiss the Notice of Motion Application dated 1/7/2025 having been overtaken by the compliance. 19.Turning to the issue of costs, Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “costs follow the event” and grant the court discretionary powers to award costs. A quick flashback of the willingness of the Respondent to reinstate the Claimants motor vehicle to operate as it had been earlier and the confirmation of the Claimant that it has been reinstated shows that both parties still held strong relationship. For this reason, the Tribunal finds no reason to punish either party by way of costs. Accordingly, we order that each party shall meet his or her costs. 20.In conclusion, it is our finding that the Notice of Motion Application dated 1/7/2025 is found to lack merit and is hereby dismissed entirely with no costs to either party.It is ordered. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA - AG. CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 11/5/2026HON. BEATRICE SAWE - MEMBER SIGNED 11/5/2026HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA - MEMBER SIGNED 11/5/2026HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW - MEMBER SIGNED 11/5/2026HON. P. AOL - MEMBER SIGNED 11/5/2026Court Assistant - MutaiMs. Chepkwony advocate for the Claimant/ApplicantEgo advocate for RespondentEgo advocate;We pray for 7 days to file our documents.Tribunal order;Respondent granted final 7 days to file and serve Written Statement, List of Documents and Statement of Defence.Claimant granted 7 days to file and serve supplementary documents if need be.Mention for pre-trial directions on 25/8/2026.