[2025] KECPT 295 (KLR)

Thagichu v Unaitas Cooperative Sacco & another (Tribunal Case 831/E902 of 2022) [2025] KECPT 295 (KLR) (Civ) (7 May 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 295 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Civil

Tribunal Case 831/E902 of 2022

BM Kimemia, Chair, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members

May 7, 2025

Between

Nyaga Thagichu

Claimant

and

Unaitas Cooperative Sacco

1st Respondent

Garam Investments

2nd Respondent

Ruling

1. The matter came up on 24/4/2025 to confirm compliance of the orders issued on 30/5/2024 vide the judgement of the Tribunal wherein the judgement was entered as follows;Order 1: the security properties being Ithanga/Phase 1/678 Ngariama Merichi 905 and Ithanga/Phase 1/1732 be valued afresh within 30 days of the judgement.Order 2: The Claimant’s loan account be reconciled within 30 days from the date of the judgement and the Respondent is hereby ordered to supply the Claimant with the complete Statement of account within 40 days from the date of the judgement.Order 3: A temporary injunction for a period of 40 days from the date of this judgement is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent by itself or through its servants and/or agents from selling or otherwise disposing the security properties namely Ngariama Merichi 905/Kirinyaga Ithanga/Phase 1/1732/Murang'a Ithanga/Phase 1/678/Murang'a.Order 4: the 1st Respondent to bear the costs of the suit and the costs of valuation of properties and reconciliation of Claimant’s loan Account.

2. Since the date of judgement, the parties did not revert back to the Tribunal until the advocate for the 1st Respondent wrote the letter dated 25/3/2025 seeking for a mention date in the matter.

3. The matter was fixed for mention on 24/4/2025, on which date the Advocate for the Respondents confirmed compliance to the order of the judgement dated 30/5/2024.

4. The Respondent confirmed having undertaken the reconciliation of accounts and valuation of the properties and confirmed the filing of the said documents in the Tribunal as per the list of documents dated 26/3/2025 stamped for filing on 22/4/2025. The Reconciled Statement of Account from 29/8/2018 to 31/7/2024 is stamped on 5/9/2024 whereas the Valuation Reports are dated 15/8/2024.

5. The 1st Respondent submitted that the Claimant did not continue to repay the loan and sought for the file to be closed to enable them to proceed to the loan recovery process.

6. In response, the Claimant states that there was a land parcel valued and that there was no complete Statement of Account filed and that there was no reconciliation of accounts and indicated that they would move the Tribunal for contempt.

7. The Respondent submitted that there was no Application filed for contempt to show that there was no compliance and the judgement was for 40 days and that they had complied with the orders as issued.

8. We note the orders of the judgement and that the Respondent filed and served the documents and moved the Tribunal for mention. In all this time, the Claimant after the lapse of the days granted in the judgement did not move the Tribunal for contempt but waited until the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal, fixed the date for mention and filed and served the documents before the Tribunal.

9. In the circumstances, we find that the Claimant having filed the Claim, had the duty to ensure that the orders of the judgement were complied to in good time and if not, they should have filed the necessary Application for non-compliance of the said order of 30/5/2024.

10. We note that the Claimant went to sleep on their rights and were not diligent to ensure full compliance until the date the 1st Respondent moved the Tribunal and appeared to confirm compliance.

11. We note that the Respondent therefore as at the time of moving the Tribunal had already done what was needed and moved the Tribunal even after noting that the Claimant was not interested in the compliance of the orders.

12. The Claimants can only blame themselves for the delay and should not be seen to complain of non-compliance despite their indolence in moving the Tribunal after the time lapse of the period issued by the Tribunal.

13. We are satisfied that the Respondent was diligent in ensuring compliance and in moving the Tribunal and the Claimant should not be seen to be raising these issues almost 11 and 1/2 months later.

14. It is in the interest of justice that litigation must come to an end.The Tribunal having entered judgement on 30/5/2024 and the Tribunal having been satisfied with the compliance of the 1st Respondent, we order the file marked as closed, the 1st Respondent having satisfied the orders as prayed in prayer in prayer b and c.

15. As for prayer (a) we note that as per the judgement of 30/5/2024, there was order 3 – temporary injunction issued for a period of 40 days from the date of judgement. The said period having lapsed, the prayer therefore is spent.In view of the above, this file is hereby ordered as closed.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2025. HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 7. 5.2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 7. 5.2025HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 7. 5.2025Tribunal Clerk JemimahKarue advocate holding brief for Mr. Chimei advocate for the RespondentOnchiri advocate for Claimant.HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 7. 5.2025