Josephat Mokua Mabera v Eveready Security Guards Sacco [2021] KECPT 574 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL  CASE NO. 245 OF 2019

JOSEPHAT MOKUA  MABERA ..................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

EVEREADY SECURITY  GUARDS  SACCO......................... RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Vide the  Statement of Claim dated  9. 5.2019,  the Claimant  has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for judgment  against  the Respondent  as follows:

a.  Refund  of deposit  Kshs.80,000/=;

b.  Payment  of Dividends  for  2015;

c.   Costs  and  interests.

The Claimant  has founded  these reliefs  on the fact that  on or about  February, 2018,  he wrote  to the Respondent  signifying  his  intention  to resign  from it and  called for deposits  amounting  to Kshs.80,000/=. That  despite   having  so withdrawn, the  Respondent  has refused  and/or  declined  to refund  the said  deposits  and pay dividends  for  2018.

Respondent’s  Case

The Respondent  has opposed  the claim  vide the Statement  of  Defencefiled  on  24. 6.2019. Vide  the said Defence, the Respondent acknowledged  that  the Claimant  was one  of its  members  until  October,  2017 when  he stopped  making  any contribution. That  by  31st  August,  2018,  he  had ceased  being a member. That  he  was a loan defaulter  and did not  therefore  qualify   to earn interest  on shares. That  by the time  the Claimant  ceased  being  a member, he  had made savings  amounting  to Kshs.60,200/= and not Kshs.80,000 as alleged.

That in the  cause  of his  membership, the Claimant  applied  for and was  granted  loans. That  as at in time  he ceased  being  a member,  he had a  loan balance  of Kshs.60,000/= plus 1% interest  of  Kshs.600.

That the  Claimant  was also  a guarantor  to the following  persons  who had  also defaulted  in repayment  of the loan.

1.  Musyoki  Muoki                Kshs.348

2.  Rawe  Julius                      Kshs.4,668/=

3.  Stephen  Simiyu              Kshs.5,265/=

That  the  loan balance  and the loan arrears  for the members  he guaranteed  were recovered  from  his savings.

The Respondent therefore  disputes  the fact  that the  Claimant  is entitled  to any refund  of deposits. Parties  appeared  before  is for  hearing of the Claim on  29. 9.2020.

Issues  for determination

We have  framed  the following  issues  for determination

a. Whether  the Claimant  has established  a proper  basis  to warrant  the Tribunal  to  make an  Order  for refund  of Kshs.80,000/= and payment  of dividends;

b. Who should  meet  the costs  of this  claim?

The Claimant’s  Case  is for  refund  of deposits  of Kshs.80,000/= and payment  of dividends  for the year,  2018. The Respondent  has opposed  the claim  on ground  that whilst  the Claimant  had made savings,  the same  amounted  to Kshs.60,200/= and not Kshs.80,000/= as alleged. That  he is not entitled  to dividends  for the  year,  2018 since he  had ceased  being  a member  by  2017 and  that he  had also  defaulted in repayment  of the loan.

Determination

We have considered  the material  before  us  and the evidence  tendered  by the parties. We have  particularly  perused  the Claimants  statement  of  account  annexed  to the Respondent’s statement  of Defence  filed on 24. 6.2019.  We note that the Claimant applied and was granted  a loan  of Kshs.88,000/= in March,  2017. We also  note that  he repaid  the said  loan  by way of  monthly  installments  of Kshs.40,000/= from April – October 2017.  Subsequently, he  ceased  repaying  the said  loan.

We have  also perused  the loan  application  form signed  by the claimant  on 28. 2.2017. It shows  that he  applied for the said  loan, that is,  Kshs.88,000/=.

Whilst  the Claimant  contend  that he  issued  Notice  of withdrawal from the Respondent in February,  2018,  he did  not tender  any evidence to demonstrate  that he had  completed  repaying  the said loan  by then.  Secondly, he  did not lead  evidence  to  demonstrate  that he had  saved  a total  sum of  Kshs. 80,000/= by the time  he ceased  being  a member  of  the Respondent.  To the contrary, it is apparent that Claimant had guaranteed members who also defaulted in repayment of their loan.

We therefore find that  in the absence  of any material  showing  that he had  repaid  the loan  in full and  that he  had made  deposits  upto Kshs.80,000/=, we find  that the Claimant  has not established  his case  on a balance  of probability.  Consequently, his claim  fails  flat  on its  foot.

Dividends

As regards the Claimant  for payment  of Dividends  for the year,  2018, we note  that  the Claimant  had defaulted  repaying  loan  in  the year  2017.  He is thus  not entitled  to payment  of Dividends.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  do not find  merit  in the Claimant’s  claim  and hereby  dismiss  it with  no orders  as to  costs.  Orders  accordingly.

Judgment signed, dated and delivered virtually this 4th day of  March,  2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia         Chairperson                Signed       4. 3.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama     Deputy Chairperson  Signed       4. 3.2021

B. Akusala                   Member                       Signed      4. 3.2021

Hon. B. Kimemia         Chairperson                Signed       4. 3.2021