Case ID:168476

Simon Otieno Adede v Mek Sacco Society Limited & 6 others [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Civil Appeal 681 of 2019

Parties:

Simon Otieno Adede v Mek Sacco Society Limited, Samson Omondi Chilo, Chrispin Otieno Pudo, Francis Ochieng Osure, Mary Anne Akoth, Eric Onyango Otieno & Jenifer Moyoyo

Date Delivered:

17 Dec 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Joseph Kiplagat Sergon

Citation:

Simon Otieno Adede v Mek Sacco Society Limited & 6 others [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Civil

County:

Nairobi

Case Outcome:

Motion dismissed

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2019

SIMON OTIENO ADEDE........APPELLANT/APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

MEK SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED.....1

ST

RESPONDENT

SAMSON OMONDI CHILO.................2

ND

RESPONDENT

CHRISPIN OTIENO PUDO..................3

RD

RESPONDENT

FRANCIS OCHIENG OSURE..............4

TH

RESPONDENT

MARY ANNE AKOTH..........................5

TH

RESPONDENT

ERIC ONYANGO OTIENO..................6

TH

RESPONDENT

JENIFER MOYOYO.............................7

TH

RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The appellant/applicant herein took out the Notice of Motion

dated 18

th

November, 2020 and sought for an order for leave to lodge an appeal against the ruling and or order delivered by this court on 13

th

November, 2020, and for the provision of costs of the Motion.

2. The Motion is supported by the grounds set out on its body and

the facts stated in the affidavit of Mr.

Absalom Osodo,

learned advocate for the appellant/applicant.

3. When the Motion came up for interparties hearing before this

court,

Mr. Osodo

learned counsel for the applicant indicated that he would be relying on the grounds and the affidavit supporting the Motion, whereas

Mr. Nyakiangana

, advocate for the 2

nd

to 7

th

respondents indicated that he was not opposing the Motion. The 1

st

respondent did not file any documents to oppose the Motion and did not also participate at the hearing of the aforesaid Motion.

4. I have considered the grounds laid out on the body of the

Motion and the facts deponed in the affidavits supporting the Motion.

5. A brief background of the matter is that the parties herein were

previously engaged in a dispute before the Co-operative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in Tribunal Case No. 612 of 2017. Upon proceeding with the hearing ex parte, the Tribunal entered an

ex parte

judgment in favour of the 1

st

respondent and against the applicant on 8

th

January, 2019.

6. Being aggrieved with the ex parte judgment, the applicant

sought to have the same set aside but that the Tribunal vide the ruling and order made on 7

th

November, 2019 declined to grant the order sought and dismissed his application.

7. Consequently, the applicant approached this court by way of an

appeal against the aforementioned ruling and filed the application dated 22

nd

November, 2019 seeking an order for a stay of execution of the

ex parte

judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

8. Upon hearing the parties, this court in its ruling delivered on

13

th

November, 2020 found that the applicant had not satisfied the conditions for the granting of an order for a stay of execution and consequently dismissed the application with costs to the 1

st

respondent.

9. The aforesaid ruling has triggered the instant Motion.

10. While it is apparent that the applicant is essentially seeking for leave of this court to lodge an appeal against its ruling in the Motion, I also note that as per the provisions of

Section 81(3)

of the

Co-operative Societies Act No. 12 of 1997

, the decision of the High Court on appeal shall be final.

11. In view of the foregoing provision, it is clear that there is no room for an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. There is therefore no basis for me to consider the merits of the Motion.

12. The upshot, therefore, is that the Motion is hereby ordered dismissed for being incompetent. On the subject of costs, I hereby order each party to bear its own costs of the Motion.

Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at Nairobi this 17

th

day of December, 2020.

………….…………….

J. K. SERGON

JUDGE

In the presence of:

……………………………. for the Appellant/Applicant

……………………………. for the 1

st

Respondent

……………………………. for the 2

nd

to 7

th

Respondents