Margaret Adhiambo Ochieng v Taraji Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 568 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 444 OF 2019

MARGARET ADHIAMBO OCHIENG ...................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TARAJI   SACCO  SOCIETY LIMITED..............................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Vide  the Statement  claim dated 24. 1.2019,  the Claimant  has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for Judgment  to be entered  against  the Respondent as follows:

a. Kshs.292,150/= being  unpaid share  contribution  together  with  interest  at 21% per annum;

b. Costs.

c. Interest

The Claimant  has founded  these  reliefs  on the fact  that  the Respondent  has declined and/or  refused  to refund  her deposits  amounting  to Kshs.292,150/=.That  being  a member  of the Respondent,  she made  monthly  contributions  towards  deposit until  November  2015 when she  applied  to  withdraw  from  it. That  she had made several  demands  for refund  of the deposit to  no avail.

When she  appeared  before  us  for hearing  on  7. 10. 2020,  the Claimant  reiterated  the averments  above.

Respondent’s Case

The Respondent  has opposed  the  claim vide  the undated  statement  of Defence  filed on  15. 8.2019.  It also  send  its Chairman  Stephen  Oluoch  to testify  in court  on  7. 10. 2020,

The gist  of the Respondent’s case  is that  the Claimant  is entitled  to a refund  of Kshs.164, 620/- . That she  had been refunded  a total sum of  Kshs.49,000/=. That  the payslip  produced  by the Claimant  should not be  relied  upon  to depict  her monthly  contributions  as the same  contain  gross deductions/ remittance  from her  employer (TSC).  That the  gross  remittance  include:

a. Deposits

b. Risk  fund

c. Plaza  share; and

d. Share capital

That  the share capital  of Kshs.4000/-  is non-refundable. That  the plaza  share  of Kshs.5000/=  is also  non-refundable. That  the risk fund  of Kshs.26,250/=  is also  non-refundable.

That at the  time  the Claimant  withdrew  membership the Respondent  was in financial  crisis resulting  from mismanagement. That  to date,  it has  not recovered  thus  cannot refund  the deposits  in full.

Issues  for determination

We have  framed  the following  issues for determination:

a. Whether  the Claimant  has made out  a proper basis  to warrant an order  for refund  of deposits.

b. Whether  the Respondent  owes  the Claimant  and if so,  to what extent.

c. Who should  meet the  costs of the claim?

Refund  of deposits/shares

It is  not  in dispute  that the  Claimant  was a member  of the Respondent  and that she  made deposits. What is  in dispute is the  amount  of the said  contribution  and the outstanding  balance.  The claimant contends that his outstanding balance is Kshs.292,150/=. The Respondent  is, however, of  a contrary  view. It avers  that the claimant  owed a sum of  Kshs.164,620/=. That  in the past,  the Claimant  has been  paid a sum  of  Kshs.49,000/=. That  the following  monies  are not refundable.

a. Share capital -                          Kshs.4000/=

b. Plaza  share contributions       Kshs. 5000/=

c. Risk  funds                                  Kshs. 26,250/=

During  her  testimony  in court,  the claimant  admitted  having  received  a sum  of  Kshs.31,980/=from  the Respondent. That  she had  also been  given a sum  of  Kshs.24,000/= as interest.  That this  leaves  a balance of  Kshs.292,190/=. The Respondent  disputes  this and  contend  that the  Claimant  had been  refunded  a sum  of Kshs.59,000/=.

For starters, we agree  with  the  Respondent  that the  Share Capital  and funds  applied  towards  construction  of the Plaza  are non-refundable. These  form  part of the  core capital  of the Respondent  which  can only be  transferred  upon  withdrawal  of membership.

As for the  risk  fund,  we do not find  any basis  with which  the Respondent  is withholding  the money. These are  monies  deducted from the Claimant  to take care  of  eventualities  of death in the course of her membership. She  is now no longer  a member  and is still alive.  She is  thus  entitled  to be refunded  the said  monies.

As regards deposits, we have perused the Claimant’s Statement of Account  dated 1. 8.2019.  It shows that her outstanding  deposits  as at 5. 7.2018 was Kshs.164,620. We  have perused  the Claimant’s  bundle of  documents  and have not  come across  one which  supports  her claim  for  Kshs.292,150/=.

We thus  find that   the only document  showing  the actual  monies  due and  owing to  the Claimant is the  above  statement  of accounts.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing is that  we find  that the  Claimant  has established  her case  on a balance  of probability  and thus  enter  judgment  in her favour  and against  the Respondent as follows:

a. Deposits            Kshs.164,620; and

b. Risk  fund           Kshs. 26,250

Total                     Kshs.190,870/=

The Claimant  is also  awarded  interest  at court  rates  and costs  as well.

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

No appearance for parties

Hon. B. Kimemia         Chairperson                          Signed       4. 3.2021