A.C.K Cura Parish Sacco Society Limited v Lawrence Kariuki Muchene [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
April 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the key highlights and outcomes of the A.C.K Cura Parish Sacco Society Limited v Lawrence Kariuki Muchene [2020] eKLR case. Gain insights into the legal principles applied and implications of this landmark judgment.


Case Brief: A.C.K Cura Parish Sacco Society Limited v Lawrence Kariuki Muchene [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: A.C.K Cura Parish Sacco Society Limited v. Lawrence Kariuki Muchene
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 12 of 2019
- Court: Co-operative Tribunal at 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:
The court must resolve the following central legal issues:
- Whether the Respondent has established adequate grounds to warrant the Tribunal to set aside the judgment entered on May 27, 2019.
- Who should bear the costs of the Application.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Claimant, A.C.K Cura Parish Sacco Society Limited, initiated proceedings against the Respondent, Lawrence Kariuki Muchene, concerning a loan agreement. The Respondent applied for a loan of Kshs. 50,000 and made repayments until February 2015, after which he claimed he was unaware of the loan's status. He resumed payments in November 2016 but ceased again in November 2017 when the Claimant purportedly closed operations. The Claimant contended that the Respondent had been duly served with the Statement of Claim and Summons and argued that it had continued its operations since its inception in 2003. The Respondent sought to set aside the judgment issued against him, claiming he was not refunded his shares and had not been allowed to defend the suit.

4. Procedural History:
The Respondent filed an application on July 31, 2019, seeking to set aside the judgment and stay its execution. The Claimant opposed this application, arguing that the judgment was regular as the Respondent had been properly served. The Tribunal considered the written submissions from the Respondent and noted the absence of submissions from the Claimant at the time of the ruling.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The Tribunal's jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte judgment is governed by Order 10 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows for such actions to ensure justice is served. The court must first determine if the judgment is regular or irregular.
- Case Law:
- In *Patel v. East Africa Cargo Services Limited (1974) EA 75*, the court emphasized the need to do justice to parties in exercising discretion.
- The distinction between regular and irregular judgments was discussed in *Fidelity Commercial Bank v. Owen Amos Ndungu & Another*, where a regular judgment follows proper service of summons.
- The principles for setting aside regular judgments were outlined in *James Kanyiita Nderitu and Another v. Marious Philatos Ghikas and Another*, which includes considerations of the reason for failure to file a defense and whether the intended defense raises triable issues.
- Application: The Tribunal found that the judgment entered on May 27, 2019, was regular since the Respondent acknowledged service. The Respondent took two months to file his application and failed to provide a draft defense to demonstrate triable issues. The Claimant's documentation indicated ongoing operations, contradicting the Respondent's claims of closure, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the Respondent lacked credibility in his justification for non-repayment.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent’s application to set aside the judgment, affirming that he did not meet the necessary conditions to warrant such action. The ruling underscored the importance of timely and credible defenses in civil proceedings.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Claimant, dismissing the Respondent's application to set aside the judgment. This case highlights the significance of proper service and the necessity for defendants to present credible defenses to avoid default judgments. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases concerning the setting aside of judgments in civil proceedings.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • A-C-K-Cura-Parish-Sacco-Society-Limited-v-Lawrence-Kariuki-Muchene-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1639_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries