Boro v Tower Sacco Society Ltd (Tribunal Case E020 of 2026) [2026] KECOPT 332 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAKURU TRIBUNAL CASE NO. E20 OF 2026 (Coram: Hon. J. Mwatsama- Deputy Chairperson, Hon. B. Sawe- Member, Hon. F. Lotuiya- Member, Hon. M. Chesikaw- Member and Hon. P. Aol- Member.) NAOMI NJERI BORO……………………………. ……………..CLAIMANT -VERSUS- TOWER SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED. …………………….........RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT 1. The matter for determination is a statement of claim dated 29th January 2026. The Claimant, a member of the Respondent SACCO, alleges that the Respondent wrongfully and unlawfully reported her to a Credit Reference Bureau (CRB) as a prolonged defaulter, despite its own records and correspondence showing payments and inconsistencies in the alleged default period. She contends that the Respondent CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 1 failed to properly verify the information, act fairly, or exercise due care before making and maintaining the adverse listing, and further failed to rectify the information despite her efforts to resolve the matter. As a result, she claims to have suffered loss of creditworthiness, inability to access credit, financial and business opportunities, emotional distress, embarrassment and reputational harm. The Claimant therefore alleges unlawful and negligent conduct, breach of statutory and regulatory duties, violation of consumer protection principles and breach of her right to fair administrative action. That the Respondent was negligent in above, the claimant, prays that this Tribunal a. Declare that the Respondent’s reporting of the Claimant to the Credit Reference Bureau was unlawful, inaccurate, unfair, and unjustified. b. Order the Respondent to immediately and unconditionally rectify, correct, and/or expunge all adverse and inaccurate CRB listings relating to the Claimant. CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 2 c. Order the Respondent to issue the Claimant with a clean and positive CRB clearance report within a period to be directed by the Tribunal. d. Award the Claimant general and/or special damages for financial loss, reputational harm, loss of creditworthiness, emotional distress, and loss of economic opportunity in the sum of Kenya Shillings Five Million (KSh 5,000,000) or such other amount as the Tribunal may deem just and fair. e. Order that any penalties, interest, or adverse measures imposed against the Claimant on the basis of the impugned reporting be set aside or reversed. f. Award costs of this claim to the Claimant. g. Grant any other or further relief that this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice. The claimant filed a witness statement and a List of documents. 2.The Respondent entered appearance and filed a statement of defence dated 17th February 2026. In their defence, the Respondent avers that the that indeed the Claimant applied for and was awarded a loan facility of Ksh. 1,215,000/- which CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 3 was to be repaid in 108 monthly installments of Ksh. 19,492/- each and that the Respondent defaulted in her February, March and April contributions and this led the Respondent to list her in the Credit Reference Bureau, and which listing was lifted when the Claimant regularized her repayments. That the listing was in accordance with the loan term agreements as well as the CRB regulations. 3.During the hearing, both parties testified. 4.According to the Claimant, she was wrongly listed since she has never defaulted in repaying her loan. That her payslips show deductions to the Respondent for the months in question being February 2025-April 2025, and if remittances were not effected, then it is due to the Respondent’s internal processes. On clarification, she informed this Tribunal that she was listed for the whole amount of the loan, Ksh. 1.2 Million while, the Respondent’s claim was that she defaulted only Ksh. 39,000/-. That she got a 3 day letter before listing, and that she didn’t know she was listed until November 2025. 5.For the Respondent, one Danson Kimani testified. He informed the Tribunal that he is the Respondent’s branch CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 4 manager, Kariobangi branch. He adopted his witness statement and produced the documents he wished to rely on in his case. In his witness statement, he avers that the claimant defaulted in the months of February, March and April 2025 and that this led to the negative listing in the CRB. That also the Claimant authorized them to list her in case of default. On cross exam, he informed the Tribunal that they recovered the arrears that led to the listing using the Claimant’s deposits. 6.Both parties filed their submissions. 7. The Claimants submitted that she had complied with her loan repayment, despite a technical hitch that she experienced with the Equity Bank, and which prevented the deducted monies from being remitted to the Respondent. That it is clear from the records that repayments were streamlined from March 2025, yet the Respondent still listed her for the entire loan amount. 8.The Respondent submits that the Claimant was in default at the time of the listing, and that there had been talks that did not bear any fruits. And that the listing was not malicious, CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 5 and further that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain defamation matters. Further that the Claimant is no longer listed. ANALYSIS 9.The question before this Tribunal is whether the Claimant is entitled to the prayers sought in her statement of claim as against the Respondents. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was a member of the Respondent. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was advanced a loan facility by the Respondent. It is also not in dispute that the Claimant was listed in the CRB regarding the repayment of the same. What is in dispute is whether the Respondent was wrong or negligent in listing the Claimant in CRB and whether she is entitled to the prayers sought because of the listing. 10. This Tribunal notes that the Respondent acknowledges the listing of the Claimant and justifies it that the Claimant had defaulted in her loans. The Claimant on the other hand avers that the listing was erroneous in that she was not in default. It is also agreed between the parties that the Claimant has already been delisted in CRB, and therefore prayers (b) and CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 6 (c) of the Statement of Claim are spent. On prayer (a) and (d), this Tribunal has to look closely on the action of the parties, before we make a determination. The Clamant was advanced a loan by the Respondent in January 2025. The Respondent was to pay via remittances from Equity Bank, her salary account. The Claimant faced challenges, having her pay deducted but not remitted to Respondent till March 2025 when it was regularized. The Respondent issues a 3 day notice, then lists the Claimant and at the same time recovers the two-month defaulted arrears from her savings. The Claimant is listed for the entire loan of Ksh. 1.2 million and not the defaulted amount. 11. The question is whether the Respondent was negligent in how it handled the issue, especially on the 3 day notice period. Regulation 50 of the the Banking and Microfinance Act (Credit Reference Bureau) Regulations provide that a customer is to be informed within a month of the loan becoming non-performing of the intention of listing in the CRB. This provision does not indicate a fixed time within which an institution is to give CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 7 notice. However, regulation 51 of the same regulations provide that a customer can respond to the notice within which the disputes are then settled if the amount owed is not disputed. It is then clear that a customer ought be given ample time to respond to the notice before listing. In our opinion, a 3 day notice is not sufficient for a customer to put in a response. Regulation 5(5) also provide as follows;- Where an institution has provided customer information to the Bureau and subsequently becomes aware that the information was inaccurate at the time it was provided, the institution will within five working days from the day the institution becomes aware of the inaccuracy, give the Bureau an amendment notice instructing it to delete the inaccurate information and replace it with the correct information. 12. From the proceedings and hearing of this matter, it is clear that the Respondent listed the Claimant for the entire amount owed, and not what was in default, and yet it failed CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 8 to rectify the same. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the Respondent owed the Claimant a duty of good faith and that duty was breached. 13. In Jogoo Kimakia Bus Services LTD v Electrocom International LTD [1992] KECA 48 (KLR), the court had this to say on damages, “The distinction between general damages and special damages is mainly a matter of pleading and evidence. General damages are awarded in respect of such damages as the law presumes to result from the infringement of a legal right or duty. Damages must be proved but the claimaint may not be able to quantify exactly any particular items in it. Special damages are the precise amount of pecuniary loss which the claimant can prove to have followed from the particular facts set out in the pleadings. They must be specifically pleaded.” 14. Therefore, on the prayer for special damages, we find that this prayer was not properly canvassed in the suit. Special CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 9 damages require that they be pleaded and specifically proved. The Claimant has not adduced any evidence to warrant the award of special damages. 15. On the question of general damages, this court shall rely on the case of Peter M. Kariuki Vs Attorney General (2014) eKLR where the Kenyan Court of Appeal cited the Supreme Court of Uganda decision in Coussens v Attorney General (1999) 1 EA and stated “The object of an award of damages is to give an injured party compensation for the damage, loss or injury that he has suffered and that the general rule regarding the measure of damages is that the injured party should be awarded a sum of money as would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the injury..... where the injury in question is non pecuniary loss. Assessment of damages does not entail arithmetical calculation because money is not being awarded as a replacement for other money rather it is being awarded as a substitute for that which CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 10 is generally more important than money. And that is best that a court can do in the circumstances.” 16. The plaintiffs did not show the extent of their losses and their current reputation. This is because, there was no evidence tendered at all on the reputation of the Claimant or any loss they suffered. The Respondents also aver that the negative listing has since been corrected. 17. In Alice Njeri Maina v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (Civil Case 72 of 2015) [2018] KEHC 5418 (KLR), the court had this to say “I have already made a finding that the Defendant acted recklessly and negligently. Though the plaintiff did not suffer financial loss and damage, she must have suffered embarrassment and emotional anguish. In the case Namalwa Christine Masinde (Supra), the court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of Kshs.200,000/= upon prove that the plaintiff had been denied a loan by a bank as a result of being listed with CRB. The case of Hon. Nicholas R.O. Omoja -vs- KCB (2009) e KLR cited by the plaintiff is not relevant in the circumstances. I do not think that the published listing of the plaintiff to authorised institutions as stated in the Regulations cited above was defamatory to her character. No unauthorised persons got that information. The publication is authorised under Statute, the Banking Act. It can therefore not be defamatory unless the plaintiff publisized the same to unauthorised persons including CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 11 “right thinking members of the society” and no proof was tendered.- See Phineahs case Supra, as well as Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Ltd -vs- Intercom Services Ltd & 4 Others where it was held that the duty of confidentiality is not absolute as it may be broken when it for instance, by a court order, a party is directed to disclose certain information to various bodies or organization. Having rendered myself as above, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to minimal damages as a result of emotional suffering, that she may have encountered as a result of the wrong listing with CRB.” 18. The above case is similar to this present case in that the Claimant was negligently listed in CRB. The Plaintiff was awarded damages of Ksh.200,000/- in the above case and we feel that a similar amount would be sufficient in this case. 19. The upshot of the above is that we find that the Claimant’s claim is partly merited and order as follows; a. The Respondent to pay the Claimant damages of ksh. 200,000/- plus interests, and costs of the suit, from the date of this judgement. Ruling dated and delivered virtually at Nyeri this 20th day of August 2026. Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed 20.8.2026 Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 20.8.2026 CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 12 Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 20.8.2026 Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 20.8.2026 Hon. P. Aol Member Signed 20.8.2026 Tribunal Clerk Koki Mugwe advocate for the Respondent. Njeri Boro – No appearance. Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed 20.8.2026 CTC NO. E20 OF 2026 - JUDGEMENT 13