[2024] KECPT 893 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 893 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the 3rd appellant failed to file written authority from the other 26 appellants as required by Order 1 Rule 13(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Given that surcharge orders are issued to individuals and the amounts differ, it was material for each appellant to give individual authority to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 893 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Alphonzo Waweru & 26 others; Respondent: Commissioner for Co-operative Development; Respondent: MNK Savings & Credit Society Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Appeal E011 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary objection upheld; 1st, 2nd, and 4th to 27th appellants struck out; costs to 2nd respondent.
Judges
J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Representative Actions, Locus Standi, Surcharge Orders, Cooperative Societies, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Representative Actions Locus Standi Surcharge Orders Cooperative Societies Procedural Irregularities

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alphonzo Waweru & 26 others

Appellant

Commissioner for Co-operative Development

Respondent

MNK Savings & Credit Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was properly instituted in accordance with Order 1 Rule 8(2) and Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants other than the 3rd appellant had locus standi to file the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether failure to file written authority by co-appellants is a fatal defect warranting striking out of the appeal against them.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the 3rd appellant failed to file written authority from the other 26 appellants as required by Order 1 Rule 13(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Given that surcharge orders are issued to individuals and the amounts differ, it was material for each appellant to give individual authority to appeal. The absence of such authority went to the root of the case, especially as some appellants had settled or were settling the surcharged amounts. The appellants did not contest these facts or file any submissions. The Tribunal concluded that the preliminary objection was merited and struck out the 1st, 2nd, and 4th to 27th appellants from the appeal, leaving only the 3rd...

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection upheld; 1st, 2nd, and 4th to 27th appellants struck out; costs to 2nd respondent.

Orders

  • 1st, 2nd, and 4th to 27th appellants are struck out from the appeal.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.