Kenya Planters Co-operative Union Limited v Githara Chuchu & 473 other Members of Gititu Coffee Growers Co-operative Society Limited & another [2019] KECA 361 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck down a Kshs. 13.2 million High Court payment order because the same dispute was already before a co-operative arbitration tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Want of jurisdiction in the High Court by reason of pending arbitration
The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application because the issues in controversy were pending before an arbitral panel; both the proceedings and the impugned orders were a nullity
The court traced the record and found sustained referrals of the dispute to the Commissioner for Co-operatives for arbitration by Aluoch, J, Olekeiwua, J and O'kubasu, J, and directions by consent. The 1st respondent had submitted to the arbitral process. The appeal against Mitei, J's ruling declining jurisdiction was withdrawn by consent, sanctifying those orders. Jurisdiction could not be assumed until wrestled back from the arbitral process.
Effect of withdrawal of appeal against the ruling declining jurisdiction
The consensual withdrawal of Appeal No. 124 of 2001 sanctified Mitei, J's orders crystallising that the court had no jurisdiction while the matter was pending before the arbitral panel
The 1st respondent had appealed against Mitei, J's ruling upholding the Commissioner's preliminary objection but withdrew the appeal by consent. It matters not that the preliminary objection was raised by a non-party; that could only have been interrogated on the appeal, which was abandoned. The respondent was therefore deemed to have abandoned the right to complain.
First appellate court's mandate on re-appraisal of evidence
As a first appeal, the Court is obliged to reconsider and assess the evidence and reach its own conclusions, and is not bound by the trial judge's findings of fact
Relying on Mwangi v Wambugu [1984] eKLR 453 and Musera v Mwechelesi & another [2007] 2 KLR, the Court restated that although an appellate court is reluctant to interfere with findings of fact by a trial judge who heard and observed the witnesses, it is obligated to reconsider and assess the evidence and need not accept findings based on no evidence or wrong principles.
Legal principles established
#- A court must down tools the moment it forms the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction; proceedings and orders made without jurisdiction are a nullity
- Where a dispute is properly pending before an arbitral process under section 80 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same issues until jurisdiction is restored to it
- The withdrawal of an appeal against a ruling crystallises that ruling and a party is deemed to have abandoned the right to complain of it
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.The impugned orders and proceedings of 17th February 2006 and 12th July 2006 declared a nullity
- 3.Costs of the appeal and the High Court proceedings to abide the result of the arbitration
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HC Civil Case No. 3619 of 1983
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under Rule 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules; the judgment was signed under Rule 32(9) of the Court of Appeal Rules following the retirement of Azangalala, JA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Planters Co-operative Union Limited v Githara Chuchu & 473 other Members of Gititu Coffee Growers Co-operative Society Limited & another [2019] KECA 361 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 269 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/361/eng@2019-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.