Nanjira v Metropolitan National Sacco Limited [2025] KECPT 184 (KLR)

Nanjira v Metropolitan National Sacco Limited (Tribunal Case E522 of 2024) [2025] KECPT 184 (KLR) (Civ) (27 February 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 184 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Civil

Tribunal Case E522 of 2024

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

February 27, 2025

Between

Charles Shiundu Nanjira

Claimant

and

Metropolitan National Sacco Limited

Respondent

Judgment

1. This judgement is originated by a Statement of Claim dated 26/6/2024 filed by the Claimant on 4/7/2024 seeking for judgement against the Respondent for;a.Refund of Kshs. 233,314/= being his deposit/savings.b.Interest on (a) above.c.Cost of this suit.d.Any other relief that the Tribunal may deem fit.

2. In the Statement of Claim ,the Claimant states that he was a member No.40711 of the Respondent and before he withdrew his membership in February 2024, he had made deposits/savings which he sought to be refunded.

3. The Respondent field a Memorandum of Appearance on 15/7/2024 and subsequently filed a statement of defence dated 24/7/2024 on 30/7/2024. The Defence Statement denied every claim of the Claimant including an observation that the Claimant has not proved that he has cleared or paid all his outstanding loans and the members whom he had guaranteed loans had repaid their loans fully.

4. Further ,the Respondent provided a scenario where they state that the society has gone through turmoil financially as a result of mismanagement by previous committee. This was emphasized in the respondents w/sub that brought out an issue of suspension of all members refunds through an Annual General Meeting resolutions dated 21/4/2022.

Analysis And Determintaion. 5. It is not in despite that the claimant was a member of the Respondent and on record is the claimants letter of withdrawal dated 5/2/2024 and a copy of member statement printed on 16/4/2024 which show a balance of Ksh 233,314/=

6. The Respondent made sweeping denials in their Statement of Defence without filing evidence that the Respondent has an outstanding loan or had guaranteed another member, the Tribunal fund it not tenable to analyse generalities which lead nowhere.

7. In its written submissions, the respondent clung to the only straw of denying members their refunds by arguing that there is an Annual General Meeting resolution which was paned on 21/4/2022 to put on hold members refunds. This resolution was not filed. This tribunal pronounced itself in the case of metropolitan national sacco ltd vs Rotich civil appeal 229 of 2021 and stated,“that the Tribunals jurisdiction cannot be ousted by a resolution of the sacco’’.As much as we sympathise with the financial challenges faced by respondent, one thing that stands out is that the SACCO has not been liquidated.

8. The matter in issue is about a members refund which is his undeniable right. The issue of voluntary withdrawal is equally a right of member as exposed from a sacco as the1st principle of Co-operatives.The Claimant exercised his right of withdrawal and demanded to be refunded his deposits as long as the respondent sacco is in existance. It is expected to honour its obligations to her members.

9. On record, the Tribunal directed the Respondents on 21/8/2024 to provide evidence of the members whom the claimant guaranteed including all the details of the loans . since the Respondents did not file any information regarding the loans alleged to have been guaranteed by the claimant, we find that this line of defence does not hold any water.While under paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, the Claimant stated:‘’that at the time of resigning the claimant had cleared all his loans with the respondents sacco and had not guaranteed any loans taken by any member of the sacco’’.The Respondent did not controvert this statement by filing some documentary proof to the contrary.It is therefore our finding that on a balance of probability the amount claimed of Kshs. 233,314/= by the Claimant remains unchallenged and remains his right to be refunded.

10. This being a liquidated demand for the refund of a specified sum of deposits claimed by the claimant, the tribunal stands by the statement/phrase in the book of Matthew 22:21 which says ‘’give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar’’ consequently, we order the respondent to give to the claimant what belongs to him.

11. In a nutshell, we find merit in the Claimants claim hence either judgement in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent for refund of Kshs. 233,314/= plus costs and interest at Tribunal rates from date of filing suit.

JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. Hon. B. Kimemia Chairperson Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Philip Gichuki Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 27. 2.2025Tribunal Clerk JonahWafula advocate for ClaimantNo appearance for RespondentHon. B. Kimemia Chairperson Signed 27. 2.2025