Cartagena Superior Court overturned the ruling that ordered the return of Coosalud's management to its members: the injunction process must start over

NewsDecision found that the members did not have the 48 hours to defend themselves. The Seventh Court has already nullified the ruling and reopened the proceedings. The Superior Court of Cartagena annulled the ruling that ordered returning the administration of Coosalud to its members. Photo: CoosaludSUBEDITOR02.10.2026 07:13 Updated: 02.10.2026 07:13 The judicial process that put the management of the Multiactive Cooperative of Integral Development Coosalud into question must begin again, after the Superior Court of Cartagena declared the nullity of the ruling that, on August 26, had granted a tutela action and ordered the delivery of the cooperative's administration to the members of its General Assembly of Delegates. The new judicial documents, known to EL TIEMPO, show that the second-instance decision was not produced by a ruling on the merits of who is right in the controversy surrounding Coosalud, but rather by an irregularity in the linking and notification of the members who could be affected by the decision. The Civil-Family Chamber of the Superior Court of Cartagena, in a ruling dated September 29, 2026, determined that the ruling of the Seventh Civil Court of the Circuit of Cartagena had to be rendered without effect from the moment of its issuance. The case file returned to the originating court, which on September 30 adopted the first measures to redo the proceedings. READ ALSO The point that led to the ruling being overturnedThe controversy arose within a tutela action initially filed by Mercedes Margarita Nieto Polo and Melis Ortega Nieves against Coosalud and the Superintendence of the Solidarity Economy. The plaintiffs alleged the violation of rights such as association, participation, and administrative due process, and requested, among other things, that the measure of taking possession of the assets, holdings, and businesses of the cooperative cease and that the separation of its statutory administration and control bodies be lifted. Upon admitting the tutela, the Seventh Civil Court of the Circuit had ordered the intervention agent to communicate the existence of the process to all of Coosalud's members, so that they could exercise their rights of defense and contradiction. It also established a 48-hour period to respond. The intervenor, as the Tribunal subsequently verified, did make communications. The case file contains a report submitted on August 26 at 8:30 in the morning, with records of the notifications made to the members. Among them was a message sent to Edwin Javier Valero Rodríguez on August 25 at 8:35 at night, to the email address he himself had subsequently indicated for notification purposes. But that was precisely where the problem lay. They ruled before the 48 hours expiredCoosalud members did not have the 48 hours provided to exercise their defense. Photo: SupersaludThe Tribunal found that, although the members had been informed, the notification occurred only the night before the ruling. The messages were sent to several members starting at approximately 8 at night on August 25. However, the Seventh Court issued its ruling the following day, August 26, without waiting for the 48-hour period it had granted for the interested parties to respond, submit documents, and exercise their defense to elapse. In that August ruling, the court had granted the requested protection and ordered the special intervention agent, Bayron Arrieta Jiménez, to carry out the material, accounting, financial, and administrative handover of the cooperative to the members of the current General Assembly of Delegates, as the highest administrative body. For the Tribunal, that circumstance had a decisive legal consequence: the members were not effectively linked to the process under conditions that would allow them to exercise their right of defense. The Chamber considered that the ground for nullity provided in numeral 8 of Article 133 of the General Code of Procedure had been established, related to the lack of proper notification of those who should have been summoned as parties. It also found another ground established, related to the omission of opportunities to request, order, or practice evidence. A case that opened another controversy among the membersThe Seventh Civil Court of the Circuit of Cartagena nullified the ruling and reopened the proceedings. Photo: CoosaludThe Tribunal also drew attention to an element it considered relevant for redoing the process. One of the accumulated actions had been brought by Amparo Montiel Arroyo and José del Carmen Moscote Torres. However, in a writing submitted on September 2, Montiel Arroyo stated that she had not been consulted nor had she authorized the use of her name to bring the tutela action, and that she did not share the facts, claims, or arguments raised. For the Civil-Family Chamber, that statement showed that there were differences among the members themselves regarding the judicial actions being discussed. For this reason, it considered it necessary for those circumstances to be clarified by the first-instance judge, once all the members had had the opportunity to intervene. The new proceedings begin with a 12-hour orderCoosalud must notify members about the tutelas and publish the ruling on its website. Photo: CoosaludAfter receiving the case file again, the Seventh Civil Court of the Circuit of Cartagena, in an order dated September 30, complied with the Tribunal's decision and expressly nullified the August 26 ruling. The new judicial office also warned that it does not have information allowing it to establish with certainty the total number of Coosalud's members, nor does it have all of their names, identification documents, and email addresses. For that reason, it adopted an additional measure: it ordered the legal representative of Coosalud, or whoever acts in that capacity, to make known to all its members, within the 12 hours following notification, the filings of the tutela actions, including the accumulated ones. The order is not limited to the members who already appeared in the lists delivered to the court. The office established that the information must also reach those who may not have been included in those lists and could have an interest in the process. To do this, Coosalud must publish the ruling on its official website and send data messages to all of its members, using the email addresses on file in its records. Everyone will again have 48 hours to interveneCoosalud headquarters in Cartagena. Photo: CourtesyOnce the notification has been made, the interested parties will have 48 hours to respond to the facts and claims of the various tutela actions and to submit the statements, documents, or items of evidence they consider pertinent. The court also formalized the accumulation of the actions coming from the Eighth Criminal Court of the Circuit, the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit, and the Fourteenth Administrative Court of Cartagena, due to the substantial identity of the facts, claims, and parties involved. The new order also incorporates another action related to Amparo Montiel Arroyo. Although she stated that she had not granted power of attorney for the tutela, the case file sent by another court contains a power of attorney attributed to her name, with personal appearance before the Fifth Notary of the Circuit of Cartagena. Therefore, the judge asked her to explain the circumstances under which she would have granted that document. He also summoned Carlos Orozco Tatis to specify the circumstances in which he received the power of attorney, its scope, and the tasks that were entrusted to him.What remains in effect and what does not?The members will have 48 hours to respond and submit documents to the judicial process. Photo: CourtesyThe Tribunal's decision is precise: everything carried out from the August 26 ruling onward, inclusive, was annulled, and the case file must return to the court so that it can redo the proceedings. The evidence that had already been practiced, however, retains its validity, as expressly provided by the Civil-Family Chamber. This means that the judicial discussion over the claims of the tutelas was not decided on the merits by the Tribunal's decision. What was ordered was to correct the proceedings to guarantee that the members who could be affected learn of the process and have a real opportunity to intervene. The Seventh Court must now await compliance with the new notification orders and the defense periods before continuing with the proceedings. In its order of September 30, it established that, once the actions have been carried out and the records of the notifications received, the case file must return to the office to continue the process. The Tribunal's decision was signed by Judge Aida Mónica Rosero García, and the compliance order of September 30 by Judge Juan Carlos Marmolejo Peynado. This video may interest you: Follow all the news from Colombia on Facebook and Twitter, or in our weekly newsletter. EL TIEMPO NEWSLETTERSSign up for our newsletters and receive news in your email according to your interests. Stay informed about what really matters to you. EL TIEMPO GOOGLE NEWSFollow us on GOOGLE NEWS. Always stay up to date with the latest news, coverage, stories, and analysis directly on Google News. EL TIEMPO WHATSAPPJoin the El Tiempo channel on WhatsApp to stay up to date with the most relevant news as it happens. EL TIEMPO APPStay informed with the EL TIEMPO app. Receive the latest news, coverage, stories, and analysis directly on your device. SUBSCRIBE TO THE DIGITAL EDITIONReliable information for you. Subscribe to EL TIEMPO and access our journalistic content without limits.