[2021] KECPT 537 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the Applicant/Respondent failed to establish a proper basis for setting aside the default judgment. The Applicant was duly served but failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The draft response to the claim was found to contain mere denials and did not raise any bona fide triable issues...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECPT 537 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rose Aluoch Oduka & 3 Others; Respondent: Martin Mwangi Tarus
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 256 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimants
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Stay of Execution, Triable Issues, Default Judgment
- 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
Rose Aluoch Oduka & 3 Others
Applicant
Martin Mwangi Tarus
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicant/Respondent has established a proper basis to warrant setting aside the default judgment entered on 12th October 2020.
- 2 Whether the defence raised by the Applicant/Respondent discloses triable issues.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Applicant/Respondent failed to establish a proper basis for setting aside the default judgment. The Applicant was duly served but failed to enter appearance or file a defence. The draft response to the claim was found to contain mere denials and did not raise any bona fide triable issues that would warrant the matter proceeding to trial. The Tribunal exercised its discretion against setting aside the ex-parte judgment, holding that the default judgment was regular and there was no injustice or excusable mistake demonstrated by the Applicant. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the Claimants.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimants
Orders
- The application dated 25/11/2020 is dismissed with costs to the claimants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
50 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL CASE NO.256 OF 2020
ROSE ALUOCH ODUKA. & 3 OTHERS.....CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
MARTIN MWANGI TARUS.........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Application before court is one dated 25th November 2020and filed on even date. The Application seeks for orders:
I. Spent.
II. That upon hearing this application ex-parte , this Honourable court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order of stay of execution of the decree herein pending the hearing of this application inter-parties.
III. That upon hearing this application inter-parties, this Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order of stay of execution of the decree herein pending the determination of this application.
IV. That this Honourable court be please to set aside the ex-parte judgment entered on 12th October , 2020.
V. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent/Applicant to file its response to claim and annexed draft response be deemed as dully filed upon payment of the requisite filing fees.
VI. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The same is premised on the grounds on the face of the Application and Affidavit in support of Martin Mwangi Muchemi deponed on 25. 11. 2020.
3. The Application is opposed by the claimant vide a Replying Affidavit sworn by Jane Njeri Njumba on behalf of the claimants sworn on 10/12/2020.
The Tribunal gave directions of 1. 12. 2020 for the Application to be canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant file their submissions on 25. 2.2021 and the claimants filed their submissions dated 22. 3.2021 on(22. 3.2021)even date.
4. Applicant’s Case.
The Applicant seeks for order of stay of execution pending hearing and determination of Application and second issue if for Applicant /Respondent to be granted leave to file its response to the claim be.
5. Claimants Case
The Claimants opposed the application on granted that the Applicant /Respondent has admitted service of summons and failed to enter Appearance and further the Applicant acknowledges taking a loan from CUNHAM Sacco and the claimants guaranteeing him and then he was defaulting knowingly. Further that any payments made was done once the suit was filed and thus the Respondent must be pushed to make his repayment.
6. Having considered all the affidavits filed and written submissions by both parties the issues for determination can be summarized as follows:
a. Whether the Applicant/Respondent has established a proper basis to warrant setting aside default Judgment entered on 2. 10. 2020.
b. Whether the defence raised triable issues.
7. ISSUE ONE.
Setting Aside default Judgment. Order 10 Rule 11 CPR 2010 imposes the court to set aside an ex-parte judgment for default of appearance and defence.
This tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside default judgment. In this case of :
Pitton Waweru Maina -Vs-Thure Musire (1983)eKLR .
Kneller JA observed as Follows:
Patel -Vs- EA Cargo Handling Services (1974)EA 75,76. BC
“…….the court has a very wide discretion under the order and rule and there are limits and restrictions on the discretion of the Judge except that if the judgment is varied it must be done on turns that are just.
This discretion is intended to be exercised to avoid injunction on hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or order , but it is not designed to assist a person who has deliberately sought , whether by evasive or otherwise , to obstruct or delay the course of justice : shah Vs. Mbogo (1969) EA 116,123 BC Hevris J……”
8. The principles for the setting aside of exparte Judgment were considered in Mbogo Vs. Shah (1968)EA 93, 91
Referred to in Pithon Waweru as (Civil Suit 1 of 2018 )
--------------------------------------------…………………………
9. ISSUE TWO- TRIABLE ISSUES
The count must consider the defence put forward by the (Respondent/Applicant who seeks leave to defend. In continental Butchery Ltd Vs. Vishima (1978) KLR where the court (Madan JA) stated:
With a view for eliminate delays in the administration of justice which would keep litigants out of their just dues or enjoyment of their property the court is empowered in an appropriate suit to enter judgment for the claim of parties. Under summary procedure provided by order ….subject there being no bonafide viable issue which would entitle and leave to defend. If a Bonafide triable issue is remitted but no so in a case which the court thus justified in thinking that the defence remitted is a sham.
CONCLUSION
10. We have perused the draft response to the claim and the same can be said to be full of mere denials.
No issues are revised that would cause the cause to be taken up for trial.
The default Judgment of this court on 12. 10. 2020 was regular and we see no need to disturb the same .
The claimants are not in any way obligated to furnish a statement of account to the respondent herein on a loan he took and he can get the same from the facility.
The upshot of the above we do not find merit in the Applicant /Respondent application dated 25/11/2020 and dismiss the same with costs to the claimant.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
Hon. B. Kimemia Chairperson ………………………..
Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson ………………………..
Mr. P. Gichuki Member ……………………….
Tribunal Clerk …………………………………………………..