Pius Musimba Muasya & 2 others v Peter Wanjohi (Official Liquidator) & another [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
May 21, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Pius Musimba Muasya & 2 others v Peter Wanjohi (Official Liquidator) & another [2020] eKLR case summary, highlighting key legal findings and implications for stakeholders involved.

Case Brief: Pius Musimba Muasya & 2 others v Peter Wanjohi (Official Liquidator) & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Pius Musimba Muasya, Norman Mutua Kimatu, John Nzomo Kioko v. Peter Wanjohi (Official Liquidator) & The Commissioner of Cooperatives
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 720 of 2016
- Court: Co-operative Tribunal at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: May 21, 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 central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make orders regarding contempt of court orders.
- What orders are available in the circumstances of the case.

3. Facts of the Case:
The claimants, Pius Musimba Muasya, Norman Mutua Kimatu, and John Nzomo Kioko, filed an application against Peter Wanjohi, the official liquidator of Drumvale Farmers’ Co-operative Society Limited, and the Commissioner of Cooperatives. The claimants sought to hold the 1st respondent in contempt of court for allegedly disobeying orders issued by the Tribunal on November 24, 2016, which included injunctions against transferring or alienating the society's properties and required disclosures of the society's financial status. The claimants contend that the 1st respondent has continued to sell and subdivide the society's property, thereby violating the Tribunal's orders.

4. Procedural History:
The Tribunal issued orders on November 24, 2016, restraining the 1st respondent from alienating the society's properties. The 1st respondent's subsequent application to set aside these orders was dismissed on March 17, 2017. Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on September 19, 2018. The 1st respondent then filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The claimants filed their application for contempt on November 17, 2019, which the 1st respondent opposed.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant statutes include Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Section 63(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 40 Rules 3(1-3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provide the Tribunal with jurisdiction to address disobedience of court orders.
- Case Law: The court referenced *Kyoga Hauliers Limited v. Long Distance Track Drivers & Allied Workers Union* [2015] eKLR and *Christine Wangari Gachege v. Elizabeth Wanjiru Evans & 11 others* [2014] eKLR, which affirm that courts have the authority to penalize for contempt of court and emphasize the obligation to comply with court orders.
- Application: The Tribunal applied the legal principles to find that the 1st respondent had indeed disobeyed the orders issued on November 24, 2016, as he continued with the liquidation process and failed to provide the required disclosures to the claimants. The Tribunal determined that the 1st respondent's claims of res judicata and the pending appeal were insufficient to absolve him of compliance with the existing orders.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the claimants, finding merit in their application dated November 17, 2019. The Tribunal determined that the 1st respondent had disobeyed the court orders and allowed the claimants' application, with enforcement of the orders to take effect once the freeze on execution of court orders made before March 15, 2020, was lifted.

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

8. Summary:
The Tribunal's decision to uphold the claimants' application emphasizes the importance of compliance with court orders in civil proceedings. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal obligations of liquidators and reinforces the authority of the Tribunal to enforce its orders. This case highlights the challenges faced by claimants in protecting their rights during liquidation processes and the necessity for transparency in the management of cooperative societies.

Citations:
- Judicature Act (Cap 8) Laws of Kenya
- Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya
- Civil Procedure Rules
- *Kyoga Hauliers Limited v. Long Distance Track Drivers & Allied Workers Union* [2015] eKLR
- *Christine Wangari Gachege v. Elizabeth Wanjiru Evans & 11 others* [2014] eKLR
- *Refrigeration and Kitchen Utensils Limited v. Gulabchand Popatial Shah & Another*, Civil Appeal No. 39/1990

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Pius-Musimba-Muasya--2-others-v-Peter-Wanjohi-Official-Liquidator--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1780_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries