[2023] KECPT 1098 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 1098 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the 3rd Respondent, having been duly served with the intention to surcharge and the surcharge order, and having participated in the inquiry process, failed to challenge the findings or appeal the surcharge order as required under Section 74 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 1098 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bacista Savings & Credit Cooperative Society; Respondent: Reuben Mucheke; Respondent: Franklin Mulemba; Respondent: Wilson Maina Kiai; Respondent: Zacheus Wekesa
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 54 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against all Respondents for the surcharged sums, with costs and interest awarded. Thirty days stay of execution granted to the 3rd Respondent.
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Cooperative Societies, Misappropriation of Funds, Surcharge Orders, Debt Recovery, Tribunal Procedure
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Cooperative Societies Misappropriation of Funds Surcharge Orders Debt Recovery Tribunal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bacista Savings & Credit Cooperative Society

Applicant

Reuben Mucheke

Respondent

Franklin Mulemba

Respondent

Wilson Maina Kiai

Respondent

Zacheus Wekesa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents misappropriated Kshs. 45,139,026 belonging to the Claimant.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents are liable to refund the misappropriated sums as surcharged by the Commissioner for Cooperative Development.
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd Respondent is entitled to challenge the surcharge order after failing to appeal as required under the Cooperative Societies Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the 3rd Respondent, having been duly served with the intention to surcharge and the surcharge order, and having participated in the inquiry process, failed to challenge the findings or appeal the surcharge order as required under Section 74 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal held that the surcharge order is enforceable as a civil debt under Section 75, and the 3rd Respondent cannot reopen the matter at this stage. The Claimant proved its case on a balance of probabilities, and judgment was entered against the 3rd Respondent for the surcharged amount, with similar orders confirmed against the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Respondents who did not defend the claim.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against all Respondents for the surcharged sums, with costs and interest awarded. Thirty days stay of execution granted to the 3rd Respondent.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Respondents misappropriated Kshs. 45,139,026 of the Claimant's funds.
  • Order for the Respondents to refund the Claimant as follows: 1st Respondent Kshs. 19,332,900; 2nd Respondent Kshs. 22,011,126; 3rd Respondent Kshs. 1,432,000; 4th Respondent Kshs. 2,363,000.