[2025] KECPT 195 (KLR)
The tribunal found that the respondent did not contest the fact of having received a Kshs. 3,000,000 loan from the claimant. The main dispute centered on the amount of the respondent's savings and the calculation of the outstanding loan balance and interest. The tribunal noted that the claimant failed to adequately...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 195 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Energy Regulate Non - WDT Society Limited; Respondent: Margaret Waithera Muchemi
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 326/E407 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for claimant
- Judges
- Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Loan Default, Sacco Member Dispute, Loan Recovery, Setoff of Savings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Energy Regulate Non - WDT Society Limited
Applicant
Margaret Waithera Muchemi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is indebted to the claimant for the outstanding loan balance and interest as claimed.
- 2 Whether the respondent's savings should be set off against the outstanding loan balance.
- 3 Whether the claimant has substantiated the calculation of accrued interest and total amount claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that the respondent did not contest the fact of having received a Kshs. 3,000,000 loan from the claimant. The main dispute centered on the amount of the respondent's savings and the calculation of the outstanding loan balance and interest. The tribunal noted that the claimant failed to adequately explain the calculation of the accrued interest and that issues of alleged fraud in the claimant's accounts were outside its jurisdiction. However, the tribunal accepted the loan balance of Kshs. 2,890,507.70 as established by the claimant's evidence and not sufficiently challenged by the respondent. The tribunal declined to award general damages due to lack of evidence and...
Court Disposition
judgment for claimant
Orders
- The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs. 2,870,507.70 with interest at tribunal rates from the date of filing until cleared in full.
- The prayer for general damages is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
Energy Regulate Non - WDT Society Limited v Muchemi (Tribunal Case 326/E407 of 2023) [2025] KECPT 195 (KLR) (30 January 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 195 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 326/E407 of 2023
Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
January 30, 2025
Between
Energy Regulate Non - WDT Society Limited
Claimant
and
Margaret Waithera Muchemi
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Claimant’s case is based on the Statement of Claim dated 10th May 2023, Claimant’s witness statement of 10th May 2023, documents of 10th May 2023, hearing proceedings on 13th August 2024 and Claimant’s written submissions dated 9th September 2024.
2. In the Statement of Claim, the Claimant states that the Claimant took Kshs. 3,000,000/= on 21st September 2020 and now has a loan balance of Kshs. 2,890,507. 70/= and an accrued interest of Kshs. 1,244,279. 40/= totaling Kshs. 4,134,787. 10/=.
3. The Claimant avers that the Claimant has just refused to repay the loan despite various demands and thus prays for judgment in its favour for Kshs. 4,134,787. 10/=.
4. The Claimant in his witness statement by the Claimant CEO avers that the Respondent joined the Sacco on 13th March 2023 under MNO 1713 and that the respondent was granted a Kshs. 3,000,000/= loan on 29th September 2020 which she subsequently defaulted.
5. The claimant filed documents in support of the case which included the following;a.Bank statementsb.Demand letterc.Respondents contribution statusd.Loan application form.
6. The Claimant case was heard on 13th August 2024 where the Claimant CEO adopted his statement as his evidence. The Claimant stated that the Respondent owed the Claimant Kshs. 4,134,787. 10/= and repaid Kshs. 281,025/= before defaulting.
7. The Claimant admitted that the Respondent shares could not cover the loan. The Claimant admitted not having verified the Claimant’s guarantor’s ability to secure the loan and that the Claimant had savings of KSh. 46,000/=. The Claimant stated that there was manipulation in regards this Claimant accounts and the matter is under investigation.
8. In their written submissions, the Claimant avers that the Respondent took advantage of various loan options available in the Sacco totaling to KSh. 3,520,000. 00/=. The loan instalment was to be KSh. 88,125/= per month for 48 months.
9. The Claimant avers that the Respondent had Kshs. 46,000/= savings and not Kshs. 1,500,000/= as stated by the respondent.
Respondent’s Case 10. The Respondent’s case is based on response to Statement of Claim dated 15th July 2023, Respondent’s witness statement dated 27th September 2023, hearing on 13th August 2024 and Respondent’s written submissions dated 17th October 2024.
11. In her response to the Statement of Claim, the respondent avers that she had savings of Kshs. 1,000,000/= with the Sacco and total savings including interest in excess of Kshs. 1,500,000/=. She denies owing the claimant Kshs. 4,134,787. 10/=. She prays that her outstanding loan, if any, be settled with her savings.
12. In her witness statement the respondent Ms. Margret Waithera Muchemi confirmed she was a member of the Claimant since 2018. She states that her savings had grown to Kshs. 973,459/= by 2020.
13. She avers that she was granted a Kshs. 1,200,000/= loan which she repaid. She states that at the time of taking Kshs. 3,000,000/= loan, she had in excess of Kshs. 1,500,000/= savings with the Claimant. She states that she defaulted the Kshs. 3,000,000/= due to Covid. She states that she sought to restructure her loan to no avail.
14. She avers that she was denied her savings and loan statements by the Claimant. She states that the Claimant should offset her loan against her savings.
15. The Respondent’s case was heard on 13th August 2024 where the Respondent stated that the Kshs. 3,000,000/= was her third loan with the Claimant.
16. She stated that she had no evidence on cash payments. She admitted owing the Sacco. In her written submissions, the respondent submits that her savings must have surpassed Kshs. 1,500,000/= and that the amount should be offset against her loan.
17. The Respondent has challenged the discrepancies in the loan figures provided by the Claimant. The Respondent challenges the Claimant to prove the Kshs. 4,134,787. 10/= and how the Respondent managed to secure a loan of Kshs. 3,000,000/= with only Kshs. 46,000/= savings.
18. She avers that in her statement filed in court on 17th June 2020 her savings are indicated as Kshs. 1,022,893. 80/=.
Analysis 19. We note that the loan of Kshs. 3,000,000/= given to the Respondent by the Claimant is not contested. The Claimant has filed a Loan Agreement form a proof of this loan. This position is not denied by the Respondent. The Respondent admits the Kshs. 3,000,000/= in her statement paragraph 4.
20. What is in contention is the Respondent’s savings with the Claimant, a matter that is under investigation as to the Claimant’s submissions. We note that the Claimant is praying for judgment for Kshs. 4,134,787. 10 comprising of Kshs. 2,890,507. 70 being loan balance and Kshs. 1,244,279. 40 being loan interest.
21. The Claimant did not explain to the Tribunal how the accrued interest of Kshs. 1,244,279. 40/= was arrived at. Since the disputed amount of the Respondent’s alleged to be a fraud and that it is under investigation, this Tribunal will not determine the credibility of the figure as given by the claimant and the Respondent as fraud issues are not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
22. We note that the amount of loan to the Respondent was made under oath by the Claimant during the hearing of the case on 13th August 2024 which stood at Kshs. 2,870,787. 10/=. The prayer in general damages is not supported by any evidence.
23. Based on the above analysis, this Tribunal finds that the loan balance to the Claimant is Kshs. 2,890,507. 70/= as per Statement of Claim and hearing proceedings on 13th August 2024. This figure has not been adequately challenged by the Respondent.
24. This tribunal is inclined to enter judgment in favour of the claimant and order the following;a.The Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs. 2,870,507. 70 with interest at Tribunal rates with effect from date of filing of the suit until cleared in full.b.Prayer on general damages fails.c.Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30. 1.2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 30. 1.2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 30. 1.2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 30. 1.2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 30. 1.2025HON. PAUL AOL MEMBER SIGNED 30. 1.2025TRIBUNAL CLERK MUTAINjeru advocate for the RespondentNjeri advocate for the ClaimantHON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30. 1.2025