Amica Savings & Credit Society Ltd v Kigio Group Company Ltd

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **CASE NO. E944 OF 2025** **(Coram: Hon. J. Mwatsama- Chairperson, Hon. B. Sawe- Member, Hon. F. Lotuiya- Member, Hon. M. Chesikaw- Member and Hon. P. Aol- Member.)** **AMICA SAVINGS & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD…………………..CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **KIGIO GROUP COMPANY LTD ……………………………..RESPONDENT** **JUDGEMENT** Background 1. The uncontested facts of this case are that Amica Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Ltd, the Claimant herein advanced the Respondent Kigio Group Company Ltd a loan facility of Ksh.22,500,000/= pursuant to Amica Boota loan application and a letter of offer and acceptance both dated 21/12/2018. The loan was to attract an interest of 18% per annum on reducing balance method and payable within a period of sixty (60) months from January 2019. 2. According to the Statement of Account filed before the Tribunal the loan was advanced to the Respondent on 28th December 2018 with some repayments made in 2019, 2020 partly 2021 and almost a complete stop of repayment in 2022/2023 and a complete stop in 2024/2025 leaving outstanding running balance of Kshs. 45,396,697 as at 31st August 2025. 3. Several Letters of Demand were written to the Respondent to repay the loan but these did not yield favourable results. **The claim.** 1. The Claimant moved this Tribunal by filling a Statement of Claim dated 3rd November 2025 seeking for judgement against the Respondent for: 2. Payment of Kshs. 45,407,631.58. 3. General damages for breach of contract. 4. Costs of the suit and interest on (a) above at Courts rate from the date of filing of this suit until payment is made in full. 5. Any other further relief that the Tribunal may deem fit and just to grant. **The Respondents Response**. 1. The Respondent filed a Memorandum of Appearance dated 15th April 2026 and at the same time filed a Statement of Admission of the Claim dated 15th April 2026. The Respondent admitted that: 2. They borrowed a loan of Kshs. 22,500,000/= on or about 21st December 2018 from the Claimant under the terms of the Letter of Offer and Acceptance. 3. The claimant disbursed the principal amount of the loan to them and that they admit that they breached the terms of the loan agreement by defaulting to repay. 4. They admit that they received the demand notices from the claimant. **Analysis**. 1. Foremost, before we analyse the facts and eventual determination of this case we need to establish whether Kigio Group Company is a member of the Claimant that fall under section 76 of the Cooperative Societies Act or not. If the Respondent is not a member of the Claimant then, the Cooperative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to make a determination over non-members of any Sacco or Cooperative Society. Although the Claimant has not mentioned in the Statement of Claim or Witness Statement that the Respondent is one of their members, there is an entry of shares of Kshs.501,900/= held by the Claimant for the Respondent as shown in the Amica Boosta Loan application dated 21st December 2018. Under section 17 of the Cooperative Society Act cap 490 the Act provide that; **“No member of a cooperative society shall exercise any of the rights of a member unless hehas made such payment to the society in respect of membership or has acquired such interest in the society as may be prescribed under this Act or under the by-laws of the society”** The fact that the respondent hold shares in the Sacco means that the Respondent is a member of the claimant, therefore the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. 1. Turning to the governing law on judgement upon admission, Order 13 Rule 2 of the **Civil Procedure Rules**,2010 provides as follows; - “**Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the court may think just.”** 1. The Respondent in their Statement of Response/Defence, admitted in plain and clear terms that the they borrowed and were advanced a loan of Ksh22.500,000/= from the Claimants on 28th December2018. They further admitted that they defaulted to repay the loan. In our view this admission made by the respondent is crystal clear and unequivocal as per guidance in the seminal case of **Choitram v. Nazari (1984) KLE 327** that; **“admissions have to be plain and obvious as plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable because they may result in judgment being entered. They must be obvious on the face of them without requiring a magnifying glass to ascertain their meaning,”** 1. Further, in the case of **747 Freighter Conversion LLC v One Jet One Airways Kenya Ltd & 3 Others HCCC No. 445 of 2012,** J.B Havelock J. stated that: *“an admission made by a respondent must not be one which requires copious interpretations or material to discern. It must be plainly and readily discernible. That there would be no point in letting such a matter go for a trial for there is nothing to be gained in a trial*”. On a plain reading of the Respondents’ response which is titled “*Respondents statement of admission of claim” dated 15th April 2026, the respondent categorically made a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission that he owes the claimant Forty-Five Million shillings (Ksh45,000,000/=) and went farther to pray that Judgement be entered in favour of the claimant against them.* 1. On the flip side of the claim, the tribunal agrees with the Respondent that section 44A of the Banking Act prohibits financial institutions from charging interest beyond the principal sum borrowed in accordance with the Induplum Rule. The Rule provides as follows: **“(1) An institution shall be limited in what it may recover from a debtor with respect to a non-performing loan to the maximum amount under sub-section (2). (2) The maximum amount referred to in subsection (1) is the sum of the** **following— (a) the principal owing when the loan becomes non-performing; (b) interest, in accordance with the contract between the debtor and the institution, not exceeding the principal owing when the loan becomes non-performing”** 1. Given that the principal loan which was initially borrowed by the respondent was Kshs. 22,500,000, applying the in duplum rule, means that the interest ceased to accumulate once the accrued interest equalled the amount of the loan advanced. That is double the amount which works out to Ksh.45,000,000. = In justifying the Rule the Court of Appeal in the case of **Mwambenja Ranching company ltd & another V. Kenya National Capital Corporation** stated that: **“The induplum rule is concerned with public interest and its key aim was to protect borrowers from exploitation by lenders who permit interest to accumulate to astronomical figures.it was also meant to safe guard the equity of redemption and safeguard against banks making it impossible to redeem a charged property”.** 1. Clearly, the Respondents are aware of this rule and the tribunal agree with them as stated under paragraph 4 of their statement of admission of claim that: “By virtue of the provisions of section 44A of the banking Act, the respondent owes the claimant a maximum of sh 45,000,000/=”. **Disposition.** 1. Drawing from the foregoing and in view of our finding that the admission made by the Respondent is crystal clear, plain, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. 2. The Tribunal hereby enters Judgement in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent for payment of Forty-Five Million shillings (Kshs.45,000,000/= )as per their own admission. 3. Payment of these amount should be made within forty five (45) days from the date of this judgement. 4. The cost and interest of this Application will be borne by the Respondent. Judgment signed, dated and delivered *virtually* at **Nairobi** this **27th** day of **August, 2026.** **Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed** **27.8.2026** **Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 27.8.2026** **Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 27.8.2026** **Hon. Paul Aol Member Signed 27.8.2026** **Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 27.8.2026** Tribunal Clerk Jemimah Ms. Mulongo for the Claimant. Wanjama advocate for the Respondent – No appearance **Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed 27.8.2026**