Wilson Gitau Kabata v City Hoppa Sacco & 2 others ; Phrasia Wanjiru Kariuki(Intended Interested Party/Applicant) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Co-operative Tribunal at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. B. Kimemia (Chairman), Hon. F. Terer (Deputy Chairman), P. Gichuki (Member)
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Wilson Gitau Kabata v City Hoppa Sacco & 2 others; Phrasia Wanjiru Kariuki [2020] eKLR, detailing critical legal insights and implications for stakeholders. Stay informed on this significant judgment.

Case Brief: Wilson Gitau Kabata v City Hoppa Sacco & 2 others ; Phrasia Wanjiru Kariuki(Intended Interested Party/Applicant) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Wilson Gitau Kabata v. City Hoppa Sacco & Others
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 386 of 2019
- Court: Cooperative Tribunal, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: April 9, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. B. Kimemia (Chairman), Hon. F. Terer (Deputy Chairman), P. Gichuki (Member)
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
- Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enjoin the Intended Interested Party as a party to these proceedings.
- Who should bear the costs of the Application?

3. Facts of the Case:
The Claimant, Wilson Gitau Kabata, asserted ownership of a motor vehicle, registration number KCG 067R, which he purchased at a public auction. The vehicle was previously co-registered with Phrasia Wanjiru Kariuki, the Intended Interested Party, who took a loan from Speed Capital Limited to acquire it. The Intended Interested Party contended that her rights were adversely affected by the Claimant's actions and sought to be enjoined in the proceedings. She claimed that there were existing court orders prohibiting the sale of the vehicle, which the 2nd Respondent proceeded to sell anyway. The Claimant opposed her application, asserting that he was the legitimate owner and that any disputes should be resolved through separate civil proceedings.

4. Procedural History:
The Intended Interested Party filed an application on July 23, 2019, seeking to be enjoined in the case. The Claimant responded with a Replying Affidavit on September 30, 2019. The 1st to 3rd Respondents did not make any representations. The Tribunal directed that the application be canvassed through written submissions, which were filed by both parties in November 2019. The Tribunal subsequently addressed the jurisdictional issues and the merits of the application.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The Tribunal's jurisdiction is defined under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490), which allows it to hear disputes concerning the business of a Co-operative Society. The key question was whether the dispute regarding the ownership of the motor vehicle fell within this jurisdiction.
- Case Law: The Tribunal referenced the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR, which established that a court without jurisdiction cannot proceed with a case. This precedent emphasized the importance of jurisdiction as a prerequisite for any legal proceedings.
- Application: The Tribunal found that the matter raised by the Intended Interested Party did not concern the business of the 1st Respondent, City Hoppa Sacco, as it revolved around the ownership of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, as the dispute was not relevant to the cooperative society's business.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Intended Interested Party's application and dismissed it with no orders as to costs. This decision underscored the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings and clarified the limits of the Tribunal's authority concerning disputes not related to cooperative business.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was unanimous among the judges.

8. Summary:
The Tribunal dismissed the Intended Interested Party's application to be enjoined in the proceedings, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This case highlights the necessity for parties to ensure that their disputes are brought before the appropriate forum, particularly in cases involving cooperative societies. The ruling reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is fundamental to the court's ability to adjudicate matters.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Wilson-Gitau-Kabata-v-City-Hoppa-Sacco--2-others--Phrasia-Wanjiru-Kariuki-Intended-Interested-Party-Applicant-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1589_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries