[2023] KECPT 68 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 68 (KLR)

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the Respondent and Interested Party, despite being served with the relevant pleadings and notices, failed to enter appearance or file any response. The Tribunal found that the decision by the Commissioner to surcharge the Appellant was irregular due to procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 68 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Wycliffe P Omenda; Respondent: The Commissioner For Co-Operative Development & Marketing; Interested Party: Comply Staff Society Sacco Ltd
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Appeal 4 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Judges
M Mwatsama, Gitonga Kamiti, M. Mbeneka
Legal Topics
Surcharge Decisions, Cooperative Societies, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Surcharge Decisions Cooperative Societies Procedural Fairness

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wycliffe P Omenda

Appellant

The Commissioner For Co-Operative Development & Marketing

Respondent

Comply Staff Society Sacco Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Tribunal 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.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the Respondent and Interested Party, despite being served with the relevant pleadings and notices, failed to enter appearance or file any response. The Tribunal found that the decision by the Commissioner to surcharge the Appellant was irregular due to procedural deficiencies in the underlying report. In the absence of any defence or justification from the Respondent or Interested Party, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the surcharge decision, granting the relief sought by the Appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

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