[2023] KECPT 51 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 51 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent and Interested Party were properly served with the pleadings and notices but failed to enter appearance or respond. In the absence of any defence or response, and upon considering the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal determined that the Commissioner's decision to surcharge the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 51 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Michael Okwero; Respondent: Commissioner for Co-operative Development & Marketing; Interested Party: Comply Staff Society Sacco Ltd
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 2 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Commissioner's decision to surcharge the Appellant quashed and set aside.
Judges
M Mwatsama, Gitonga Kamiti, M. Mbeneka
Legal Topics
Surcharge Decisions, Appeals Against Administrative Actions, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Surcharge Decisions Appeals Against Administrative Actions Service of Process

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Okwero

Appellant

Commissioner for Co-operative Development & Marketing

Respondent

Comply Staff Society Sacco Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the decision by the Commissioner to surcharge the Appellant was lawful and regular.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent and Interested Party were properly served and given an opportunity to respond.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of defence or response affects the outcome of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent and Interested Party were properly served with the pleadings and notices but failed to enter appearance or respond. In the absence of any defence or response, and upon considering the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal determined that the Commissioner's decision to surcharge the Appellant was tainted by irregularities in the underlying report. The failure to afford the Appellant a fair hearing and the procedural lapses rendered the surcharge decision unlawful. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the Commissioner's decision to surcharge the Appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Commissioner's decision to surcharge the Appellant quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • The decision by the Commissioner to surcharge the Appellant is quashed and set aside due to irregularities in the report.
  • Orders to apply in Appeal No CTC 4/17, Appeal 2/17.