Michael Onyango Obiero v Kenya Qatar Diaspora Sacco [2021] KECPT 241 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.466 OF 2019

MICHAEL  ONYANGO OBIERO.....................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

KENYA QATAR  DIASPORA  SACCO.......................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1.  The  Claim  filed  in court  is dated  19. 7.2019  filed  in court  on 15. 8.2019. The  claim seeks  for  judgment  against  the Defendant for:

a. Refund  of  Kshs.604,000/=

b. Interest  on (a) above  at court  rates  from August  28th  2018 till settlement

c. Dividends  and interest  owing  as at the date of  judgment

d. Damages

e. Costs  to the  suit.

2.  The Plaintiff   states  he was  a  member  of  the Defendant  and was  admitted  by being  given No. 2812 as  his membership number.

The claim against the Defendant is for recovery of Kshs.604,000/= in respect  of savings  accumulated  with the defendant.

Despite  demand and  notice  of  intention  to sue  the defendant  refused  and or neglected  to pay  the Plaintiff  the  sum  due to him.

3.  The Respondents /Defendants did not  enter  Appearance  despite  service   and  the Application  Request  for Judgment  dated 12. 10. 2019 was entered  on 17. 10. 2019 and matter  was to proceed  for  formal  proof  for prayer  C and D  that is

Prayer C-  Dividend and interest  owing  as at date of judgment

Prayer D-  Damages.

On  9. 2.2021  the Defendant/Respondent  filed  a Notice  of  Appointment  dated  and filed  on even date.

When  the matter  came for  formal proof  hearing  on 9. 2.2021  the case proceeded  and Claimant  testified  relying  on his witness statement  dated  19. 7.2019  and  list of documents  filed on 15. 8.2019. the  same was  adopted  as his Evidence-  in- Chief.

There  was a further  list of  documents  filed on  8. 2.2021  and the same  was produced  as evidence  exhibit  1 and 2.

4.  His claim  is for dividends  which have  never been paid  as per paragraph  65  By-laws  of the Respondent. He  stated  he did not  know the  rate  of the dividends.

The Claimant  further  also prayed  for damages.  He had planned  to purchase  a tractor  but  he was unable  because  the  Respondent  had his money.

At the  close of the  Claimant  case  the court  ordered  for  the Claimant to file  and serve  audited  accounts  to enable  determination  of rates  of  Dividends.

The  Claimants  filed their  submissions  dated 10. 5.2021  on even date together  with the audited  accounts  of the Respondent.

The issues to be determined  by court  are:

Issue  one

Whether  dividends  are payable  to the claimant and if they  are how much is owing?

Issue two

Whether  damages  are payable?

Issue one:

5.  Looking  into the accounts  filed  therein we note  in the:

Year 2016                    Surplus  of                   Kshs.490,564

Year 2017                    Surplus  of                    Kshs.1,352,970

Year  2018                    Surplus  of                   Kshs. 4,026,038

Year 2019                    Surplus of                     Kshs.10,621,800. 57

To this  end we note that  there was no  mention  of any dividends  to be paid  to its members this prayer  must fail.

6.  Issue  two:

Damages

The Claimants  in their  submissions  state that  there was  breach  by  Respondent when it  failed to honour  its obligation  in paying  the Claimant his refund.

The Claimant  quoted  By-law provision  4. 1 and 4. 2.

He states  he has been  disempowered  economically  which is  against  the general  objectives of the Respondent.

The case  of Consolata  Anyango  Ouma –vs -  South Nyanza  Suja Company Limited [2015] eKLR ;

“ The next  question is  whether the Appellant  was entitled  to  damages  as a result  of the breach. As a general principle, the purpose  of damages  for breach  of contract  is, subject  to mitigation  of loss,  the claimant  is to be  put as  far as possible  in the  same position  he would have  been if the breach  complained  of had  not occurred.”

This  is principle  is encapsulated in the latin phrase  restituta integrum( see Kenya  Industrial Estates  Limited  -vs-  Lee Enterprises  Limited  NRB CA  NO. 54 OF 2004 [2009]

“ Restitution  integrum  here does not  mean restoring  to the Respondents  the amount they paid  for the machines. It means  putting  the Respondents  in the position they held before  the fire.  They were  then  not only  the owners  of  the machines which could  costs Kshs.65,000 to buy new, but  also in happy position  of having paid Kshs.13,500 for them”

The measure  of damages  is in accordance  with the Rule  established  in the case  of Handley  -vs- Baxendale [1854] 9  exch 341

“ That the  measure  of damages  is  such  as may be fairly  and reasonably  be considered  arising  naturally  from the breach  itself  or such as  may be  reasonably contemplated by the parties  at the time  of the contract  was  made  and a probable  result  of such breach...”

The upshot  of the above  is that  the Tribunal enters judgment for  claimant  against respondent  as  follows:

a. Refund  of Kshs.604,000/= as per judgment  initially  entered on 17. 10. 2019.

b. Interest  at court  rates  from date of  filing  suit.

c. Prayer  for dividends  and interest  fails

d. Damages  an award of Kshs. 25,000/= is granted.

e. Costs  of the suit to be paid  to Claimant.

JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.

HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021

HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021

MR. GITONGA KAMITI MEMBER SIGNED 29. 7.2021

TRIBUNAL CLERK CHARLES MAINA

Mbuthia  advocate  for Respondent : Present

We pray  for 30 days  stay  of execution.

Order:  30 days  stay  granted.

HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 7.2021