[2020] KECPT 146 (KLR)

[2020] KECPT 146 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Claimants failed to prove fraud as required by law. The sale of the plots was conducted pursuant to a valid resolution passed at the Respondent's 35th AGM, which was neither challenged nor shown to be unlawful. The Tribunal held that the project was abandoned due to insurmountable legal and financial obstacles, and the decision to refund members was binding. As such, there was no breach of contract by the Respondent, and the claims for special and general damages could not succeed. The Tribunal dismissed the claims in their entirety, finding no merit in the allegations of fraud or breach of contract.

Citation
[2020] KECPT 146 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Enos Edago Machayo; Applicant: Sakibu Lugaia; Respondent: Tembo Sacco Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Case Number
Tribunal Case 3 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Allotment of Land, Breach of Contract, Cooperative Society Governance, Fraud Allegations
Source Language
English
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Allotment of Land Breach of Contract Cooperative Society Governance Fraud Allegations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enos Edago Machayo

Applicant

Sakibu Lugaia

Applicant

Tembo Sacco Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent fraudulently and/or illegally sold the Claimants' plots of land.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent breached the contract of sale when it sold the said plots of land.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants are entitled to special and general damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimants failed to prove fraud as required by law. The sale of the plots was conducted pursuant to a valid resolution passed at the Respondent's 35th AGM, which was neither challenged nor shown to be unlawful. The Tribunal held that the project was abandoned due to insurmountable legal and financial obstacles, and the decision to refund members was binding. As such, there was no breach of contract by the Respondent, and the claims for special and general damages could not succeed. The Tribunal dismissed the claims in their entirety, finding no merit in the allegations of fraud or breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The Claimants' claim is dismissed with no orders as to costs.