[2023] KECPT 411 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was properly served with summons and pleadings and entered appearance but failed to file a defence within the prescribed time. The ex parte judgment was therefore regular. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that it ought to have been served with the request for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KECPT 411 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Danice Philip Mwalumba Watee; Respondent: Radar Guards Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 263 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed; default judgment upheld
- Judges
- BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Service of Process, Default Judgment, Stay of Execution
- 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
Danice Philip Mwalumba Watee
Applicant
Radar Guards Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent was properly served with summons and pleadings as required by law.
- 2 Whether failure to serve the request for judgment invalidated the ex parte judgment.
- 3 Whether the Respondent's draft defence raised triable issues warranting setting aside the ex parte judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was properly served with summons and pleadings and entered appearance but failed to file a defence within the prescribed time. The ex parte judgment was therefore regular. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that it ought to have been served with the request for judgment, finding no legal basis for such a requirement. The Respondent's draft defence consisted of mere denials and did not raise any triable issues warranting a trial. The Respondent also failed to demonstrate any irreparable damage or loss that would result from upholding the ex parte judgment. Accordingly, the application to set aside the ex parte judgment lacked merit and...
Court Disposition
application dismissed; default judgment upheld
Orders
- The Respondent's application dated October 13, 2021 is dismissed with costs.
- The default judgment entered on September 24, 2021 is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Watee v Radar Guards Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited (Tribunal Case 263 of 2021) [2023] KECPT 411 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (27 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KECPT 411 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Commercial and Admiralty
Tribunal Case 263 of 2021
BM Kimemia, Chair, J. Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
April 27, 2023
Between
Danice Philip Mwalumba Watee
Claimant
and
Radar Guards Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The claim herein was brought by the Claimant vide Statement of Claim dated June 8, 2021 and filed on June 16, 2021. On July 9, 2021 the Respondent’s advocate filed a Memorandum of Appearance dated July 1, 2021.
2. On August 20, 2021 the Claimant’s advocate filed a request judgment against the Respondent who entered appearance on July 9, 2021 but failed to file a Defence within the time allowed.The Tribunal on September 24, 2021 for the Claimant against the Respondent in the sum of Kshs 100,322/= plus costs and interest.
Application to set aside 3. The Respondent on October 14, 2021, filed a Notice of Motion dated October 13, 2021 praying for orders:a.Spent.b.That pending the hearing and determination of this application this Honourable court do order stay of exparte judgment entered on September 24, 2021 and decree issued on October 5, 2021. c.That in the alternative this Honourable court do make such other interlocutory orders as it may deem fit and just expedient pending the hearing and determination of this application.d.That the Respondent herein be allowed to defend this suit unconditionally.e.That costs of the application be provided for.
4. The Application is premised on the grounds set out thereunder and supported by the Affidavit of one Job Onsongo Osoro sworn on 13th October, 2021 and filed on October 14, 2021. It is contended by the Respondent /Applicant on the grounds and in the Supporting Affidavit:a.That it was not served with the request for judgment as required by law.b.That the Respondent/Applicant has a good Defence/Response that raises triable issues, which can only be determined by means of vira voce evidence.c.That unless the exparte judgment entered on September 24, 2021 is reviewed and Consequential Orders set aside the Applicant would suffer irreparable damage and loss.
5. In opposing the Respondent’s Application, the Claimant filed on February 11, 2022, a Replying Affidavit sworn on November 15, 2021.
6. The Claimant argues that the Respondent has not met the requirements for a Stay of Execution and that the Notice of Motion dated October 13, 2021 is baseless, is an abuse of the process and offends the provisions of the Cooperative Tribunal Practice and Procedure Rules 2009, the Civil Procedure Act and the Rules.Paragraph 10 of the Replying Affidavit sets out the statements of merits of his case.
Determination 7. We have read the Respondent’s Application and the Affidavit in support thereof and also the Applicant’s Replying Affidavit.We have also perused the submissions filed by both parties and the authorities attached thereto and conclude as follows:i.It is not in dispute that the summons and pleadings were properly served upon the Respondent.ii.It is not in dispute that the Respondent filed the Memorandum of Appearance but failed to file a Statement of Defence within the requisite period of time.The judgment was therefore regular after the requisite period.iii.There is no requirement known to us and no law has been cited to support the Respondent’s argument that it ought to have been served with the request for judgment herein.iv.The Respondent has not demonstrated that it would suffer any damage or loss if the orders are granted.v.The Respondent’s draft Statement of Defence annexed to the Supporting Affidavit marked as annexture “J003” is made up of mere denials and does not raise any issues warranting a trial.In determination, we find that the Respondent’s Application dated October 13, 2021 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Default judgment entered on September 24, 2021 is upheld.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023. HON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA, CHAIRPERSON, SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023HON. J. MWATSAMA, DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON, SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023HON. BEATRICE SAWE, MEMBER SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA, MEMBER, SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023HON. PHILIP GICHUKI, MEMBER, SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW, MEMBER SIGNED, APRIL 27, 2023HON. PAUL AOL, MEMBER, SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023TRIBUNAL CLERK JEMIMAH/JONAHApplication dated October 13, 2021 lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.No appearance by parties.Ruling delivered in absence of parties.HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY, CHAIRPERSON, SIGNED APRIL 27, 2023