[2025] KECPT 230 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 230 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the respondent/applicant was served with the application for access to documents and was given multiple opportunities to respond, including extensions of time, but failed to file any response for over a year. The orders of 12/4/2023 were therefore properly granted as prayed, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 230 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Kiprotich Ruttoh; Respondent: Elijah Kosgei & 2 others
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 274 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside and Stay Execution of Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Right to Be Heard, Cooperative Societies Disputes, Access to Information
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Setting Aside Orders Right to Be Heard Cooperative Societies Disputes Access to Information

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Kiprotich Ruttoh

Claimant

Elijah Kosgei & 2 others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside and Stay Execution of Orders

  1. 1 Whether the orders given on 12/4/2023 should be set aside for being granted ex parte without the respondent being heard.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was accorded a fair opportunity to respond to the application before the orders were made.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to access the documents under the Cooperative Societies Act and the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent/applicant was served with the application for access to documents and was given multiple opportunities to respond, including extensions of time, but failed to file any response for over a year. The orders of 12/4/2023 were therefore properly granted as prayed, and the respondent's claim of not being heard was unsubstantiated. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to be heard is satisfied when a party is given an opportunity to participate and fails to do so. The respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of diligence and did not justify setting aside the orders. The Tribunal also recognized the claimant's statutory and constitutional right to access...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 22/5/2023 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
  • Mention for pretrial directions set for 18/9/2025.