Okeno v Metropolitan Sacco Society Limited [2024] KECPT 229 (KLR)

Okeno v Metropolitan Sacco Society Limited (Tribunal Case E001 of 2021) [2024] KECPT 229 (KLR) (7 March 2024) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2024] KECPT 229 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Tribunal Case E001 of 2021

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

March 7, 2024

Between

John Ochieng Okeno

Claimant

and

Metropolitan Sacco Society Limited

Respondent

Judgment

1. The matter for determination is a Plaint filed on 18th October 2021 in which the Plaintiff/Claimant claims that he was a member of the Respondent having joined the Sacco in 2014. The Claimant avers that he wrote a letter to withdraw from the Respondent in February 2020, but the Respondent has only paid Kshs. 25,000/- leaving a balance of Kshs. 95,000/- as the whole sum claimed was Kshs. 121,000/-. The Claimant therefore prays fora.The payment of Kshs. 95,000/= being the value of his shares.b.Costs and interest on (a) above at courts rate from the date the cause of action arose.c.Any other relevant reliefs that the Honourable court may deem fit and just to grant.The Claim is accompanied by a witness statement, and documents in support of the claim.

2. The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 15th November 2021. I their Defence the Respondent admit that the Claimant was its member and that he was making monthly member deposits. However, the Respondent deny receiving ant notice of intention to withdraw by the Claimant. The Respondents further aver that in its 2019 Annual General Meeting resolutions, the Respondents resolved to schedule deposits on a first come, first serve basis and since the Respondent only became aware of the Claimants claim once the suit was filed, its refund would be scheduled for 23rd November 2022, and that is after the Claimant clear all the outstanding loans and interests.

3. The matter was canvassed by way of submissions and hence there was no hearing.

4. Both parties filed their submissions. In their submissions, the Claimants reiterated their claims in the Plaint. The Claimants states that the Respondents had undertaken to refund the Claimant on 18th January 2022 but the payment was not honored. The Claimants further submit that the Respondent’s denial of receipt of Withdrawal Letter is untrue since they made a partial refund long before the suit was even initiated.

5. In their submissions, the Respondents submitted that the Respondent passed a resolution to refund deposits to members on a first come first served basis, and that the Claimant received his final settlement of Kshs. 22,600/= on 4th March 2022. They urge the Tribunal to dismiss the Claimants case.

Analysis 6. This Tribunal has considered the submissions by the parties and the documents filed by the parties. This Tribunal notes that it is not in dispute that the Claimant was a member of the Respondent. It is also not in dispute that the Claimant had deposits with the Respondent as the Respondent confirms this in their statement of Defence. What is in dispute is the amount of deposits that the Claimant had with the Respondent and whether the same have been settled in full.

7. In answering the above question, the Tribunal notes that the amount the Claimant claims is Kshs. 95,000/= with the claim that he received Kshs. 25,000/= when he travelled to the Respondents offices. The Claimant has filed letters showing that he issued notice to withdraw from the Respondent, and the Respondent indeed responded to one of the letters clearly indicating that the Respondent was going through financial challenges and would pay on a first come, first serve basis. On the amount due to the Respondent, if any, this tribunal notes that the Claimant claims a refund of Kshs. 95,000/-, however he did not show anything in support of the Claim. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed the Claimant’s statement printed on 5th November 2021 which indicate that the amount due to the Claimant is Kshs. 85,006. 25/=. this Tribunal is inclined to believe on the statement. The difference between this amount and the Kshs. 95,000/= that is claimed by the Claimant can be attributed to the Risk Fund that the Claimant had clearly indicated in his demand letter. The Respondent has not shown how he departed from the amount he stated in the Statement of Account to his statement in his submissions indicating that the Claimant has been fully paid.

8. Flowing from above, we find merit in the Claimants Claim and order as followsa.A refund of Kshs. 85,006/-b.Costs of this suit and Interest on a above from date of filing suit at Tribunal rates.

JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024. Hon. Beatrice Kimemia Chairperson Signed 7. 3.2024Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 7. 3.2024Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member signed 7. 3.2024Hon. Philip Gichuki Member Signed 7. 3.2024Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 7. 3.2024Hon. Paul Aol Member Signed 7. 3.2024Tribunal Clerk JemimahNo appearance by parties.Judgment delivered.Hon. Beatrice Kimemia Chairperson Signed 7. 3.2024