Linus Labanson Murithi & another v Mwalimu National Sacco Society Ltd & 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
April 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the case summary of Linus Labanson Murithi & another v Mwalimu National Sacco Society Ltd & another [2020] eKLR, focusing on legal implications and outcomes. Perfect for legal professionals and students.

Case Brief: Linus Labanson Murithi & another v Mwalimu National Sacco Society Ltd & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Linus Labanson Murithi & Peter Omondi Okal v. Mwalimu National Sacco Society Ltd & Joseph Musee Kula
- Case Number: Tribunal Case No. 141 of 2017
- Court: Cooperative 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 central legal issues presented for determination were:
a. Whether the claimants had laid a proper basis to warrant a review of the judgment delivered on January 8, 2019.
b. Who should bear the costs of the application.

3. Facts of the Case:
The claimants, Linus Labanson Murithi and Peter Omondi Okal, filed an application seeking to review a judgment that granted the 1st respondent, Mwalimu National Sacco Society Ltd, 45 days to file additional documents in its defense. The claimants argued that the judgment was tainted with illegality because the 1st respondent had previously indicated it would not file any further documents. The 1st respondent opposed the application, asserting that the claimants had not met the conditions for a review and that the application was an abuse of court process.

4. Procedural History:
The claimants filed their application on September 24, 2019, supported by an affidavit. The 1st respondent filed a statement of grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit. The application was disposed of via written submissions, with the claimants submitting theirs on March 6, 2020, and the 1st respondent on March 2, 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The Tribunal's jurisdiction to review judgments is grounded in Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 80) and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. For a review, a party must demonstrate the discovery of new and important matter, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason.
- Case Law: The Tribunal referenced *Evans Bwire v. Andrew Aginda*, Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006, which emphasized that applications for review must be based on strong grounds. It also cited *Nyamogo & Nyamogo v. Kogo* [2001] EA 170, which clarified what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. The case of *Jaden Mohamed v. Charan Singh & Another* was also noted regarding sufficient reasons for review.
- Application: The Tribunal assessed the claimants' arguments against the established legal standards. It found that the claimants had not provided sufficient reasons for the review, as the Tribunal's earlier decision to allow the 1st respondent to file additional documents was not an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal had determined that further documentation was necessary for a complete understanding of the case.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the claimants' application dated September 24, 2019, concluding that it lacked merit and ordered costs to be borne by the claimants. The decision reinforced the standards required for a successful application for review in civil proceedings.

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

8. Summary:
The Tribunal ruled against the claimants' application for review of the January 8, 2019 judgment, finding no basis for the claims of illegality or error. This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in civil applications and clarifies the standards necessary for a successful review in the context of the Kenyan legal framework.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Linus-Labanson-Murithi--another-v-Mwalimu-National-Sacco-Society-Ltd--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1807_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries