Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco v Otieno [2025] KECPT 360 (KLR)

Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco v Otieno (Cause E401 of 2024) [2025] KECPT 360 (KLR) (26 June 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 360 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Cause E401 of 2024

Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members

June 26, 2025

Between

Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco

Claimant

and

Caleb Otieno

Respondent

Judgment

1. The Claim herein was brought by the Claimant to the Tribunal vide the Statement of Claim dated 16th April 2024

2. Therein the Claimant prays for the Judgement against the Respondent for;a)Refund of loan balance s in the sum of kshs.1, 295,483. 01/=.b)General damages to be assessed by the court.c)Cost of this suit.d)Interest on (a) and (b) at the Sacco’s rate from the date filing suit until payment in full.e)Any other relief that the honorable Tribunal may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances.

3. It’s the Claimant Claim that the Respondent as a member number KMAT00003 of the Claimant took various loans including Jiinue loan of a sum of Kshs.1,800,000/= on 24th July, 2020 and defaulted to pay resulting in a loan balance of Kshs. 1,116,043. 67/= after offsetting the deposits; that the Claimant also took a capital loan of kshs.300, 000/= on 30th November 2018, and defaulted to pay, resulting in a loan balance of kshs.179,439. 34/= ,that on or about the 22nd ,January 2024 the Claimant wrote to the Respondent about the loan payment expecting upon the expiring of one month ,the Respondent would have made a commitment to pay the amount due, the Claimant’s efforts to recover the loan balance have become futile as the Respondent has failed ,refused, and or neglected and to refund the same;

4. The Claimant further accuses the Respondent of breach of agreement as a result of which the Claimant claim to suffered loss and the unjustifiable withholding of loan balance before financial inconvenience for which the Claimant holds the responsible primarily liable .

5. The Respondent failed to enter appearance and file defense and the Claimant obtain the summary Judgement for kshs.1,295,483. 01/= and the claim was heard on formal proof of prayers (b),(c),(d)and (e) At the hearing Stanley Mwaura cw1 adduced sworn evidence .

6. Claimant witness 1 stated that he is the Chief executive officer of the Claimant and adopted as claimant in chief his witness statements sworn on 16/04/2024.

7. Claimant witness 2 also adduced the Claimant list of documents dated 16/04/2024 as the Claimant evidence and marked the document therein as the Claimant exhibits 1-4 .

8. The witness further states that the Claimant gives members loan which are payable on a monthly basis that recovered loans are used cover other loans.

9. Upon conclusion of the hearing the Claimant was directed to file written submissions however at the time of writing this Judgement the Claimant has not file written submissions.

Analysis and determination 10. We have considered the evidence adduced by the Claimant on its totality and the only issue arising is whether the Claimant is entitled to prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e), of the statement of claim.

11. It is clear from the loan statement produced by the Claimant that Respondent did borrowed two loan of kshs.3,000,000/= and that he was paying the same together with other types of loan.

12. It is also clear that the Respondent defaulted in payment of his loan and the balances thereof were Kshs.1,116,043. 67/= and kshs.179,439. 34/= on 25/09/2023 and 16/06/2023.

13. However, the Claimant has not sufficiently quantified proved its claim for general damages suffered as a result of the Respondent’s nonpayment of the loan.

14. It is true that it is not enough to merely state or alleged loss and damage to succeed in a claim for general damages.

15. A Claimant must quantify his loss or damages and support the same by way of documentary evidence.

16. As such we find that the Claimant’s claim for general damages has not been proved to the required standard and therefore it fail on the Claimant Claim for interest.

17. We fine also that the Claimant has not demonstrated the interest rate applied in the loan at any given time, during the loan periods. We therefore find that the Claim for interest at the Sacco rate has not been proved by the Claimant and is therefore not merited

18. On cost we find that the Claimant having retained the service of counsel and its claim having not been controverted or defended, the Claimant is entitled to the cost of the Claim.

19. In conclusion, we allow the Claimant’s Claim against the Respondent and accordingly, enter Judgement in favor of the Claimant for;(a)Payment of the sum of kshs.1,295,483. 01/=(b)the cost of this claim(c)Interest on (a) and (b) at the Tribunal rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.

Upshot 20. Judgement in favor of the Claimant against Respondent for kshs.1,295,483. 01/= plus cost and interest.

JUDGEMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. HON. J. MWATSAMA - DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE - MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA - MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI - MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW - MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025HON. PAUL AOL - MEMBER SIGNED 26 .6. 2025**Tribunal Clerk A.Gechiko**No appearance by parties.Judgment delivered in the absence of parties.HON. J. MWATSAMA – DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 26/06/2025