Weldon Rotich v Metropolitan National Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 617 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 694 OF 2019

WELDON ROTICH....................................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

METROPOLITAN  NATIONAL  SACCO  SOCIETY LIMITED....RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

The Claimant  has moved this Tribunal  vide  the Statement  of Claim  dated  4. 11. 2019 seeking  for judgment against  the Respondent  as follows:

a. Refund  of share  deposits  totaling  to  Kshs. 77,000/-;

b. Costs  and interest.

The Claimant  has founded  these reliefs  on the fact  that upon  tendering  his withdrawal from the Respondent,  the Respondent  has declined  and/or  neglected  to refund  the said savings.

Respondent’s  case

The Respondent  has opposed  the claim vide  a statement  of Defence  dated 13. 11. 2019.  It is  the Claimant’s  case that  the Claimant  never furnished  it with a Notice of  withdrawal as alleged.

That even if  it had received  the said Notices,  then it would  not have  refunded  the said  deposits since  the Respondent’s  member  passed  a resolution  structuring the manner  of effecting  refunds  and that  the Claimant’s refund will be effected  in January, 2022.

Disposal  of the Claim

Vide the  directions  given  on  4. 11. 2020,  the claim  was canvassed  by way  of written  submissions.  The Claimant  filed  his on 11. 11. 2020 while  the Respondent  did  so on  16. 11. 2020. We will  consider  the  same whilst  determining  the issues  raised  in the  claim.

Issues  for determination

We have framed  the following  issues  for determination

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

b. Who  should meet the costs  of  the claim?

Refund  of deposits

This  is a  claim  for refund  of deposits.  The Claimant  contends  that  he withdrew  from the  Respondent  on  5. 7.2019. That  the Respondent  acknowledged  his resignation  on 15. 7.2019. That  subsequently, the Respondent  has not  refunded  his deposits.

On  its part,  the Respondent  has denied  ever receiving  the said Notice. It further  argues  that even  if  the said  Notice  was duly  served,  the Claimant  would not  be entitled  to an immediate  refund  of the deposits  as the resolution  passed  by  its members  in the  year 2019 and  approved  by  SASRA and the office  of the Commissioner  for Co-operatives sanctioned  the scheduling  of refunds  on the basis  of  first  come first  served.  That subsequently, a schedule was  prepared  and that  the same  shows that  the Claimant  will be  refunded  in January  2022.

That  the Claimant  is bound  by the said  resolutions  and the by-laws  and thus  cannot  be heard  to be  using  the legal  process  to pursue  his refunds.

We have considered  the arguments  for and  against  the claim.  These  arguments  poses  the following  further  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Claimant  served the  Notice  of withdrawal  upon  the Respondent; and

b. Whether  the resolutions  passed by  the Respondent  ousts  the jurisdiction  of the Tribunal  to make  any orders  regarding  refunds.

Service  of Notice  of withdrawal

The Respondent  has vehemently  denied service  of the Notice  of withdrawal. We have  perused  the said  Notice. It is  handwritten  and is  dated 15. 7.2019.  Whilst  the  same does not  carry  and/or  contain  an endorsement  that the same  was duly received, we have  every  reason  to believe  that the  said Notice  was duly  served  upon  the Respondent.

Respondent’s Resolution

Without  delving  in detail about  the Respondent’s reference  to the Resolutions  passed at its Annual General  Meeting, and their  binding  nature,  we hasten to say  that the  jurisdiction  of this Tribunal  to entertain  disputes  between  members  of a  Co-operative  Society and the society  itself  is clearly  delineated by Section  76 of the Co-operative  Society’s  Act (Cap 490) Laws of Kenya.

The wording of the Act does  not provide  room for parties  to maneuver. The  said jurisdiction  is thus not  subject  to  or  subservient  to resolutions  passed by  the respective  Co-operative  Societies. With  this in mind,  we find  the Respondent’s  reference  to the  resolution  passed  in the Annual General Meeting  of 2019 and endorsed  by  SASRA and the Commissioner  for Co-operative Development inconsequential. They  are of  no legal  effect  as far as  our jurisdiction  to entertain  claims  of this  nature  are concerned.

Amount  of monies  due for refund

The claimant  has  claimed  a refund  of Kshs.77,000/=. We  have however,  perused  his statement  of account  and note that  the amounts  due for refund is  Kshs. 67,000/=.

Conclusion

The upshot  of the foregoing  is that we  find that  the Claimant  has established  his case on  a balance  of probability. We  accordingly enter  judgment  in his favour  and as against  the Respondent  for Kshs.67,000/= plus  costs  and interest  at court  rates.

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