Patrick Walukha & 3 others v Jason Wasike Moli [2019] eKLR Case Summary

Explore the case summary of Patrick Walukha & 3 others v Jason Wasike Moli [2019] eKLR, delving into key legal principles and implications. Enhance your understanding of this significant judgment.

Case Brief: Patrick Walukha & 3 others v Jason Wasike Moli [2019] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Patrick Walukha & Others v. Jason Wasike Moli
- Case Number: Cause No. 1 of 2019
- Court: Micro and Small Enterprises Tribunal at Bungoma
- Date Delivered: December 16, 2019
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Joseph Were, Ocharo Kebira, Annette Gikuya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following central legal issues:
1. Whether the consent order dated September 10, 2019, can be reviewed.
2. If the consent order can be reviewed, what just and fit consequential orders can the tribunal provide?
3. Whether the application for amendment of the Response is valid.

3. Facts of the Case:
The claimants, Patrick Walukha, Benard Barasa, Getrude Khisa, and Herman Barasa, filed a case against the respondent, Jason Wasike Moli, regarding the conduct of elections for the Kitale Juakali Welfare Association. The parties initially expressed a desire to resolve the matter amicably, leading to a consent order on September 10, 2019. However, disputes arose concerning the membership registers, with the claimants having a register of 247 members, while the respondent's register had 231 members. The respondent later claimed that the official register was destroyed in a fire, which became a crucial point in the proceedings.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with a Notice of Motion application by the respondent on September 26, 2019, seeking various interim orders, including the review of the consent order. The tribunal had earlier facilitated discussions between the parties, leading to the consent order that outlined the process for harmonizing membership registers and conducting elections. The respondent's application prompted further hearings where both parties presented their arguments regarding the validity and implications of the consent order.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the Civil Procedure Act, particularly Section 3A, and the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, including Order 8 Rule 1 and Order 45 Rule 1, which govern the review of consent orders. Additionally, Article 81 of the Constitution of Kenya, which outlines principles for electoral systems, was also relevant.

- Case Law: The tribunal referenced several cases, including *East Africa Portland Cement Company Limited v. Superior Homes Limited* (2017) and *Wasike v. Wamboko*, which established that consent orders can only be set aside under stringent conditions, akin to setting aside a contract. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking to alter a consent order.

- Application: The tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet the stringent conditions required for reviewing the consent order. Allegations of bias against the County Enterprise Development Officer (CEDO) were deemed insufficient, as no evidence was presented to substantiate claims of partiality. Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that the only valid membership register was the one submitted by the claimants, which led to the decision that elections must proceed based on this register.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the respondent's application for the review of the consent order, affirming that the elections for the Kitale Juakali Welfare Association must be conducted under the supervision of a legal officer from the Micro and Small Enterprises Authority, using the register provided by the claimants. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to established electoral processes and the integrity of consent orders.

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

8. Summary:
The tribunal's ruling reinforced the binding nature of consent orders and established that claims of bias must be substantiated with credible evidence. The decision to conduct elections based on the claimants' register emphasizes the tribunal's commitment to fair electoral processes within the association. This case highlights the legal standards for reviewing consent orders and the necessity for parties to comply with agreed-upon terms to ensure the orderly conduct of elections.