https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/286

Njoroge v Kimaratia Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd & 2 others (Tribunal Case E200 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 286 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 286 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E200 of 2025 J Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 30, 2026 Between Joseph Kiburu Njoroge Claimant and Kimaratia Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd 1st Respondent Gatundu South Sub County Officer 2nd Respondent Dominic Kagwi Kamau 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.The Application for determination is Notice of Motion dated 9th February, 2026. The Application sought for the following:1.Spent2.That pending hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue orders that the 2nd Respondent acted in contempt of the court order issued on 24th March 2025.3.That pending hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue temporary orders suspending the 3rd Respondent from sitting as a member of the Upper Gichuka/Mutimumu Factory.4.That pending hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue orders directing the 3rd Respondent is sitting illegitimately in office.5.That pending hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue orders restraining the 3rd Respondent from siting in any management committee meeting, signing documents or any such other functions associated with the position.6.That pending hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue orders restraining the 1st Respondent from holding a meeting for rotational elections scheduled on 24th February 2026.7.That the costs of this Application be in the cause. 2.The Application is supported by the Affidavit of Joseph Kiburu Njoroge who states he is a member of 1st Respondent Society. In February 2025 he was elected winner in Upper Gichuka/Mutimumu Zone however some time later he was informed by the 1st Respondent there were irregularities in the election and there was to be repeat elections.He avers the Tribunal vide Order dated 23/3/2025 gave orders to stop any repeat elections. However, the 1st Respondent proceeded with the elections and 3rd Respondent was declared winner. 3.He states the 3rd Respondent sits in the management committee illegally despite the matter being at the Tribunal. The Application therefore seeks for the 3rd Respondent not to perform any functions in the management committee of Upper Gichuka/Mutimumu Zone pending hearing of the case. 4.The 1st and 3rd Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 20/2/2026. The 1st and 3rd Respondent response is that the Applicant seeking suspension and removal of 3rd Respondent from office and declaration of him illegitimately sitting are ultra vires and out of jurisdiction of the Honourable Tribunal. They aver the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders as there is no contempt application.The Application seeks for final and substantive orders at an interlocutory stage including suspension of an elected official and restraining of statutory meetings.The Respondent aver the prayer by Applicant to restrain 1st Respondent from holding rotational elections and statutory meetings scheduled for 24/2/2026 is unlawful interfering with Society Statutory By-laws and is untenable in law. It would lead to paralysis of the Society operations and unjustifiably infringe on other members rights.Respondents state Applicant failed to demonstrate prima facie case with a probability of success. They prayed for the Application to be dismissed. 5.Parties filed Written Submissions; Applicant Written Submissions dated 23/3/2026 and 1st and 3rd Respondents filed Written submissions dated 6/5/2026 with their List of Authorities. The 2nd Respondent did not participate in the Application.As we write the ruling for the Application before us, we are inclined to look at the history of the case noting the Tribunal has so far handled three other Applications between the parties and determination of the same made. It would seem the parties herein are out to either outsmart each other or one of the parties has no regard of the law. 6.Looking into the Application dated 9/2/2026, responses, written submissions and authorities cited by the parties the issue to be determined is;Issue one: Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the Application and prayers sought?Issue two: Whether the orders can be granted? Issue one: Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the Application and prayers sought? Section 76 Co-operative Societies Act Cap 490 provide 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”. 7.As such from the above, the Co-operative Tribunal does have jurisdiction to handle disputes within societies between member and Society which includes and not limited to election that is;a.Validity of the committee or officer electionsb.Eligibility of candidates vying for positions within the Societyc.Breach of By-laws as is the case before us.The 1st and 3rd Respondent submissions that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction on matters election, which include removal of elected officials does not hold water.That is part of the mandate of the Tribunal as envisaged in Section 76 of Cooperative Societies Act Cap 490. The Tribunal has mandate to look into the elections, whether the By-laws were followed, whether there were any flaws and/or indeed make determination of either repeat elections, cancel elections or uphold the election results. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to entertain the Application and orders sought.It is with concern that the 2nd Respondent – Gatundu South Sub-County Officer would “conveniently” not take part in the proceedings yet it is their office that oversees such elections and advices parties. The office of the commissioner is instrumental in such proceedings and their absence to say the least speaks volumes. 8. Issue two: Whether the prayers sought can be granted?It is evident from the Application the 1st and 3rd Respondent are out to defeat the ends of justice. There is an explicit order, properly determined Notice of Motion dated 20/2/25 which gave clear orders that no elections for Upper Gichuka/Mutimumu Zone was to be done until determination of the case.As stated earlier this case seems to be a circus. The Tribunal is well aware. We know for a fact the Respondent after determination of the earlier filed Applications went to the High court on Appeal in Kiambu.HCCA/E156/2025 – Kiambu – Kimaratia Farmers’ Cooperative Society v Joseph Kiburu Njoroge.The 1st and 3rd Respondents now Appellants in the above-mentioned case were granted stay orders subject to them depositing Kshs. 100,000.00/= as security for costs on 3/10/2025. 9.Whether or not this was done is not confirmed by the parties before court. Despite the order by High court the 1st and 3rd Respondent have not raised or mentioned the stay order that was conditional and as such we take it that there is no stay order in place.It is evident there are no stay orders in place preventing the Tribunal from determining the Application dated 9th February 2026.The Tribunal had already pronounced itself in the matter at hand vide ruling delivered on 28th August 2025 for the then Application. Notice of Motion dated 18/3/2025 where an Injunction was granted against the elections for Gichuka factory.It is therefore in bad taste for the 1st and 2nd Respondents to arrange for elections in the said factory which the case is pending hearing without leave of the Tribunal the same amounts to dishonesty on the 1st Respondent Society part.They cannot deny the existence of the court order neither can they deny the officials of 1st Respondent as they were held in contempt for not obeying Tribunal orders. 10.The Tribunal orders are not made in vain as rightly cited. In the case of Shimmers Plaza Ltd v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2015] eKLR.“The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and match as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This amounts to abdication of the sacrosanct duty bestowed on us by the constitution. The dignity and authority of the court must be protected and that is why those who flagrantly disobey orders must be punished, lest they lead us to a state of …”.The mere fact that the 1st Respondent called for elections despite there being an Injunction for the selected or particular area in question, shows the contempt the 1st Respondent Society has for the Tribunal. Orders are not made in vain. 11.We now look whether the Application has merit and we look into the classic case of Giella v Cassman Brown where the principles of granting Injunction were laid out: -i.Whether there is a prime facie caseii.Where there is irreparable harm or damage if the court does not interfere which injury or loss cannot be adequately compensated.iii.The balance of convenience I. Prima facie caseThe Respondents have indeed on the face of every record in the case disregarded court orders. There is a prime facie case that the Claimant/Applicant case would turn out to be an exercise in futility if the orders herein are not granted.In a bid to defeat the hearing of the case the 1st Respondent actions amount to contempt. We rely on the case of Mrao Ltd v First American Bank Ltd [2003] KLR 125 where Bosire, JA. stated as follows:“..It is a case in which on the material presented to the court a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter…[it] is more than an arguable case. It is not sufficient to raise issues. The evidence must show an infringement of a right, and the probability of success of the applicant’s case upon trial. That is clearly a standard which is higher than an arguable case.” II. Whether the Applicant will suffer irreparable harmTo establish this, we look into the case of Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielson [2014] KEHC 1718 (KLR), which was further observed: -“The equitable remedy of temporary injunction is issued solely to prevent grave and irreparable injury; that is injury that is actual, substantial and demonstrable; injury that cannot “adequately” be compensated by an award of damages. An injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or the injury or harm is such a nature that monetary compensation, of whatever amount, will never be adequate remedy.”In the present Application, if no orders are granted there would definitely be irreparable harm that cannot be compensated via compensation.The claim is on a disputed election and Applicant’s loss cannot be compensated if his interests are not protected and rightly so by the Tribunal.We are equally convinced the Applicant has ticked this box. The 1st and 3rd Respondent have not given any justifiable reason why the Claimant/Applicant is not to be granted the orders sought. III. Balance of ConvenienceThis limb is mostly relied upon if the court is not sure whether the 1st and 2nd limbs for consideration have been met.The court is to consider which party stands to suffer the most if the orders are not granted.We don’t have to dwelve into this limb however on a balance of probability the Applicant herein stands to suffer if the orders are not granted. If the 3rd Respondent is allowed to assume office in an election conducted, which was illegal contrary to court orders then indeed the person at loss is the Applicant as his whole case will collapse if the said orders are not granted. 12.After all is said and done, it is unfortunate that the 1st Respondent despite the court order found it fit to call for an election for the specified ward which the Tribunal had ordered elections halted pending hearing and determination of the case.It cannot be business as usual where societies take advantage of being or having the upper hand and oppress the Claimant/Applicant as is being evidenced in the case at hand.Cooperative Societies have a responsibility not just to a select membership but to the whole membership regardless of their opinion or attitude towards specific members.Each member is an important component of any society and should not be discriminated against. Upshot Application dated 9/2/2026 is found to be with merit and make/issue the following orders:1.That pending hearing and determination of the case on 29/10/2026, this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue temporary orders suspending the 3rd Respondent from sitting as a member of the Upper Gichuka/Mutimumu Factory.2.Any elections held on 24/2/2026 for Upper Gichuka/Mutimumu Factory are illegal.3.Hearing for main suit 29/10/2026 RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026Court Assistant – MutaiMs. Ndehi Advocate for the ClaimantMs. Mwendwa Advocate holding brief for Mr. Ngaramba Advocate for the 1st RespondentHON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30/6/2026