[2023] KECPT 1034 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 1034 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence on record to confirm that both the 1st and 2nd Respondents were duly served with Summons to enter appearance, including an Affidavit of Service and the 2nd Respondent's signature on the Summons. The Respondents did not challenge the service or cross-examine the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 1034 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Wazee Self Help Group; Respondent: Rongai Rural Sacco Limited; Respondent: David Gichangi Kibe
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 25/E041 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed in part; 2nd Respondent struck off; execution to proceed only against 1st Respondent.
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, PO Aol, M Chesikaw
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Service of Process, Necessary Parties, Execution of Decree
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Setting Aside Judgment Service of Process Necessary Parties Execution of Decree

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wazee Self Help Group

Applicant

Rongai Rural Sacco Limited

Respondent

David Gichangi Kibe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should set aside or vary the judgment entered on 30th March, 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent is a necessary party in this suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence on record to confirm that both the 1st and 2nd Respondents were duly served with Summons to enter appearance, including an Affidavit of Service and the 2nd Respondent's signature on the Summons. The Respondents did not challenge the service or cross-examine the Process Server. The Tribunal held that setting aside the judgment would be unjust to the Claimants, who had sought recovery of their funds since 2010. Regarding the 2nd Respondent, the Tribunal determined that he was not a necessary party as there was no evidence he had any personal interest in the funds outside his official capacity as an officer of the 1st Respondent....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part; 2nd Respondent struck off; execution to proceed only against 1st Respondent.

Orders

  • The Temporary Stay of Execution granted on 21st June, 2023 is vacated, with execution to be enforced only on properties of the 1st Respondent.
  • The 2nd Respondent is not a necessary party and is struck off the suit in his capacity as an Officer of the Sacco.