Acre Moja Savings & Credit Co-operative Society v Adanje & 2 others (Tribunal Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 297 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment)

Acre Moja Savings & Credit Co-operative Society v Adanje & 2 others (Tribunal Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 297 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment)

The claim was incompetent because the Society had not first invoked and completed the statutory inquiry process under Section 58 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Without a Commissioner-initiated inquiry and resulting report, no surcharge or recovery action had crystallized, so the Tribunal lacked a proper basis to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KECOPT 297 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Acre Moja Savings & Credit Co-operative Society; 1st Respondent: Daniel Adanje; 2nd Respondent: Evans Wanyama Musime; 3rd Respondent: Tom Akal Khisa
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E001 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Co Operative Tribunal Claim / Judgment After Formal Proof Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Judges
["J Mwatsama", "F Lotuiya", "M Chesikaw"]
Legal Topics
Inquiry Before Surcharge, Irregular Cheque Payments, Default Judgment, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Recovery of Society Funds
Source Language
en
Co Operative Law Civil Procedure Inquiry Before Surcharge Irregular Cheque Payments Default Judgment Tribunal Jurisdiction Recovery of Society Funds

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Acre Moja Savings & Credit Co-operative Society

Claimant

Daniel Adanje

1st Respondent

Evans Wanyama Musime

2nd Respondent

Tom Akal Khisa

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Co Operative Tribunal Claim / Judgment After Formal Proof Following Default Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claim for recovery of allegedly irregular payments was properly before the Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether Section 58 of the Co-operative Societies Act had to be complied with before any surcharge or recovery claim could proceed.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal could entertain the suit absent an inquiry and report by the Commissioner for Co-operative Development.

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was incompetent because the Society had not first invoked and completed the statutory inquiry process under Section 58 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Without a Commissioner-initiated inquiry and resulting report, no surcharge or recovery action had crystallized, so the Tribunal lacked a proper basis to entertain the suit.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Statement of Claim dated 28/1/2025 dismissed as without merit.
  • No order as to costs.