[2021] KECPT 590 (KLR)
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant was entitled to a refund of his outstanding deposits as reflected in the most recent statement of account, amounting to Kshs.330,600/=. The Tribunal further held that the risk fund contribution of Kshs.29,250/= was refundable since the Claimant was alive and no risk event...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECPT 590 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Ernest Adenyo Ajiki; Respondent: Taraji Sacco Society Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 443 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Share Refund Dispute, Sacco Member Rights, Deposit Recovery
- 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
Ernest Adenyo Ajiki
Claimant
Taraji Sacco Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent owes the Claimant money and if so, to what extent.
- 2 Who should bear the costs of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant was entitled to a refund of his outstanding deposits as reflected in the most recent statement of account, amounting to Kshs.330,600/=. The Tribunal further held that the risk fund contribution of Kshs.29,250/= was refundable since the Claimant was alive and no risk event had occurred. However, the share capital (Kshs.4,000/=) and plaza contribution (Kshs.5,000/=) were deemed non-refundable based on Sacco practice and by-laws. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had established his case on a balance of probabilities and awarded the total sum of Kshs.359,850/=, together with costs and interest at court rates.
Court Disposition
claim allowed in part
Orders
- Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs.330,600/= being outstanding deposits.
- Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs.29,250/= being refundable risk fund deductions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 443 OF 2019
ERNEST ADENYO AJIKI.....................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TARAJI SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED.........................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Vide the Statement dated 19. 2.19 filed on 15. 8.2019, the Claimant has moved this Tribunal seeking for Judgment to be entered against the Respondent as follows:
a. Kshs.415,850/= being unpaid share contribution together with interest at court rates;
b. Costs.
The reliefs are based on the fact that despite having issued a formal Notice of withdrawal the Respondent has refused and/or declined to process and refund his deposits.
When he appeared to testify in court on 7. 10. 2021, he stated that he withdrew from the Respondent on 30. 6.2017. That the Respondent admitted to owing Kshs.415,850/=. That the Respondent did not give any explanation on deductions. That he paid Kshs.5000/= for the plaza.
Upon cross examination, the Claimant admitted that he received a refund of Kshs.67,000/= from the Respondent. That they were not informed about the risk fund.
Respondent’s Case
The Respondent has opposed the claim vide the undated statement of defence filed on 15. 8.2019. The gist of the Respondent’s opposition to the claim is that the Claimant is only entitled to Kshs.330,600/= after being refunded a total of Kshs.47,000/=. That the total deposits at the time of resignation was Kshs.377,600/=.
That the Respondent was badly mismanaged and thus unable to refund the deposits in fail.
When he appeared to testify in court on 7. 10. 2020, he stated that the following monies were not refundable.
a. Share capital Kshs. 4000/=
b. Risk fund Kshs.29,250/=
c. Plaza – Kshs.5000/=
Issues for determination
We have framed the following issues for determination
a. Whether the Respondent owes the Claimant money and it so to what extent;
b. Who should meet the costs of the claim?
Refund
It is the Claimant’s case that he is entitled to a refund of Kshs.451,850/= being the cumulative share refund. That to date, he has received a total refund of Kshs.67,000/=. On its part, the Respondent contend that the Claimant’s cumulative outstanding deposit is Kshs.330,600/=.
We have perused the claimant’s “share statement of Account “ dated 30. 6.2016. It shows that the total outstanding deposits as at 28. 6.2016 was Kshs.377,600/=.
We have also perused his statement of account date4d 1. 8.2019, it shows that his outstanding deposits as at 2. 1.19was Kshs.330,600/=.
We note that the statement dated 1. 8.2019 is the most recent one and thus present the most recent status of the share account as opposed to the one produced by the plaintiff dated 30. 6.2016.
It thus follows that the Claimants cumulative outstanding deposits is Kshs.330,600/=.
We agree with the Respondent that a sum of Kshs.4000/= being share capital is not refundable. Equally, a sum of Kshs.5000/= being contributions relating to the plaza is not also refundable.
As regards, the claim for risk fund, we do not agree with the Respondent that the same is not refundable. These were monies meant to come into the aid of the Claimants family in the event of death. He is still alive and has ceased being its member. The Respondent therefore does not have any business with the said money. It should refund the same to the Claimant.
Final orders
The upshot of the foregoing is that we find that the Claimant has established his case in a balance of probability. We accordingly enter judgment against the Respondent as follows:-
a. Kshs. 330,000/= being outstanding deposits.
b. Kshs. 29,250/= being deductions towards risk fund.
Total 359,850/=
Respondent to meet costs and interest at court rates.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 4. 3.2021
HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 4. 3.2021
B. AKUSALA MEMBER SIGNED 4. 3.2021
No appearance for parties
HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 4. 3.2021