Joseph Muriuki Mwaniki v Fortune Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 552 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.297 OF 2019

JOSEPH  MURIUKI MWANIKI.......................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

FORTUNE  SACCO  SOCIETY  LIMITED..................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The suit  was brought  by a statement  of  claim  dated 4th  June  2019and filed  on6th June  2019.

The Claimant  was a member  of the Respondent  Sacco  and now his  claim against   them is for :

a. Have his name  cleared  and  or listed  positively  by  the CRB.

b. Render  account  of proceeds and the household  and livestock  impounded  on 18. 11. 2011

2. The Respondents filed  a Statement of Defence  dated 24th  June  2019on25th  June  2019denying  the averments  by the Claimant  and instead  the Claimant  is the one who owes  them a sum of Kshs.176,961. 26/=.

3. Analysis of the Case

Claimant’s  Claim

The Claimant  testified  on 12. 11. 2020 and  gave evidence  to the  following  extent.

That he was a member of the Respondent Account Number  301/25/3324 Kirinyanga District  Farmers  Sacco.

He applied  for a loan  of Kshs.28,500/=.

In the year  2001 with  repayment  period  of 3 years  at 17% interest  per annum.

The interest of Kshs.4,845/= interest  x 3 years amounted  to Kshs.14,435/=.

Total  payable  by Claimant  was Kshs.43,035/-  KTDA was  to  deduct  the money  and remit  the receipt. In the same year  the Respondents attached my property. The claimant  requested  for a statement of Account  from  2001  but  never  was availed  to him.

His  contention  was  that he paid  for the loan  through  KTDA   and cleared  it September  2001.

All bonus cash  from the Claimant’s  tea farm  was forwarded  to Respondent.  The loan  was due  in 2004 however,  he paid  within  90 days  that is  31. 9.2001.

Claimant  claimed  Respondent  owed him Kshs.106,119. 25/= plus  proceeds  of sale  of his attached  property.

4. Respondent’s Case

RW1 John  Mwangi  testified  on behalf  of the Respondents. He is the  head of credit. He  adopted  his witness statement  filed  on 20. 8.2020 as evidence-in-chief. He acknowledged  Claimant  applied for  a loan  in  June  2001. The payments  paid by the Claimant  are not  reflected  in the Statement  of Account.

He further  stated Installments  that  are unpaid  are charged interest.  He  confirmed  sale of  Claimant’s  goods. However,  stated  he did not  know how much  was recovered  from the sale.

RW1  stated  the Claimant’s Account  was in arrears  and because  of the status  the Claimant  was  listed  in CRB.

While testifying the Respondents informed  the Tribunal  they  are willing  to delist  the Claimant  from the CRB  and write  off the Claimant’s loans.

5. The issues  for determination  are as follows:

a. Did the  Claimant  owe the  Respondent any money?

b. Is the Claimant  owed any cash  by the  Respondent?

c. Was  it wrong  for the Respondent  to list the  Claimant  with CRB?

6. Issue 1:

Did  the claimant  owe  the Respondent  any monies?

From the  evidence  on record  it is clear  the Claimant took a loan  in the year  2001.

What  is in contention  is if  the amount was paid off  to its  totality.

The Respondents herein  attached  the Claimant’s  goods  herein  in the November  2011 for the loan  arrears despite  the Claimant’s claim  of having  no arrears  and having paid  his dues.

The goods  attached  therein  were sold  and  the Respondents went  quiet  after the sale.  No accountability  was given  to the Claimant  and even  on cross examination  RW1  stated  he does not know  how much  was collected  on sale  of the Claimant’s  good.

Not  knowing if  the Claimant’s  debt  was fully  serviced  if at all by the sale  is in bad  taste. With  this in mind  we find  the Claimant to have  no balance  in his debts  with  Respondent  and if he  did  the sale  of his goods  in 2011  ought  to have sufficient  settled  the debt the  reason  why the Respondents  went silent.

7.  Issue 2:

Is the  Claimant  owed  any cash  by the  Respondent

............................

8. Issue  3:

Was  it  wrong  for the Respondent  to list  the  Claimant  with Credit Reference Bureau.

The Claimant  claims  in January  2018  when he went  to get  a loan from a financial  institution  the same was declined  because  he  was listed  as  a defaulter.  He was  unable to  get a loan.

The Respondent  in evidence  stated  it was  automatic  for loan defaulters  in their membership  to be listed  in CRB.

The Claimant  followed up  to find  out the position  and why  he was listed  but  the Statement of Account  was not  availed  to him.

9. We  find it  ironic, for the  Respondents to claim  they are  willing  to write  off the Claimant’s  debt and  have his name  removed  from CRB after  damage  has been  done.

Thus  it was  negligent  and in bad taste  for the Respondent  to have Claimant  listed  as a defaulter knowing  very well the repercussions and  only for them  to state  they  are willing  to write off the  Claimants  debt  and have  his name removed  from CRB.

Question  is: What Debt caused  Claimant  to be listed in CRB?

One that Claimant  had cleared  and even if he  had not, they  sold his goods  to recover  the cash  owed if any.

10. In the  final  analysis  judgment  is entered  in favour  of  the Claimant  against  the Respondent  as follows:

a. An order  to the Respondent  to have the  Claimant  credit  .....listed  as  positive  in the Credit  Reference  Bureau .

b. Accurate  Account  of proceeds  of sale impounded  on  18. 1.2011 is not viable.

c. Costs to the Claimant  and interest  at court rates.

Judgment signed, dated and delivered virtually this 6th day of May, 2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia                 Chairperson                ....................................

Hon. J. Mwatsama              Deputy Chairperson  ....................................

Mr. P. Gichuki                      Member                       ....................................

Tribunal Clerk                       .............................