Fortune Sacco Society Ltd v Kinyua (Tribunal Case E038 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 333 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Fortune Sacco Society Ltd v Kinyua (Tribunal Case E038 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 333 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 333 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E038 of 2024 J Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members August 27, 2026 Between Fortune Sacco Society Limited Claimant and James Kinyua Respondent Judgment 1.The matter for determination is a Statement of Claim dated 27th August 2024. In the Statement of Claim, the Claimants claim that at all material time to this suit the Claimant was its member number 054722, and that in diverse dates, he applied for and was awarded 4 different loan facilities, that he has failed to repay and that the total outstanding sum owed currently stands at Ksh. 1,467,929.38. The Claimants are aggrieved and pray for:a.The said sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Four Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred and Twenty-Nine and Thirty-Eight Cents Only (Kshs. 1,467,529.38)b.Interest on the above at 16% from the time when the debt fell due until payment in full.c.Costs of the suit and interests.d.Any relief that the Honourable Court may deem fair and just to grant.The claimants filed their witness statements and a list of Documents in support of their claim. 2.The Respondents did not enter an appearance or file any response to the Claim. The claimant requested for judgement on 12th May 2025 and an interlocutory judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant as against the Respondent. The matter was set for formal proof on the 6th July 2026. 3.During the formal proof hearing one Agnes Wairimu Munene testified. She adopted her witness statement and produced the documents she wished to rely on in her case. She informed this Tribunal that she is the debt collection manager. She informed this Tribunal that the Respondent is a member, and was advanced four loans that he had defaulted to pay. 4.No submissions were filed in this matter Analysis 5.The question before this Tribunal is whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought. The Claimant is seeking to enforce a debt that was advanced to the Respondent. The Respondent did not appear to defend the case, despite sufficient service. 6.The Claimant testified in formal proof, and we ask ourselves, what is formal proof? 7.In the case of Samson S. Maitai & Ano….Vs…African Safari Club Ltd & Ano. (2010) eKLR, the Court held that:-“…..I have not seen judicial definition of the phrase ‘formal proof’. ‘Formal’ in its ordinary dictionary meaning refers to being ‘methodical’ according to rules of evidence. On the other hand, according to Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 17 Paragraph 260, proof is that which leads to a conviction as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Proof refers to evidence which satisfies the court as to the truth or falsity of a fact. Generally, as we well know, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the truth of the issue in dispute. If that party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden passes to the other party who will fail unless sufficient evidence is adduced to rebut the presumption”. 8.Therefore, even in cases where the other party does not enter appearance and does not file a Statement of Defence, the claimant still has the burden of adducing evidence to prove his case. The burden of proof does not leave the claimant until that burden is discharged. The purpose of formal proof in this case, was for the Claimant to prove his case, to wit, that they indeed advanced a loan to the Respondent and that the Respondent has defaulted on the same. 9.During the formal proof hearing, the Claimant produced their documents. The documents comprise of loan application forms for the four loans, Respondent’s loan statements for the four loans, and demand letters on the same. The same is not controverted. 10.This Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence by the Claimant. This Tribunal is inclined to believe that the Claimant has discharged their evidential burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. 11.The upshot is that we find merit in the Claimant’s Claim, and make the following orders:a.Judgement is hereby entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for the sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Four Hundred and Sixty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred and Twenty-Nine and Thirty-Eight Cents Only (Kshs. 1,467,529.38), plus costs and interests at Tribunal rates till payment in full. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSON - SIGNED 27.8.2026HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER - SIGNED 27.8.2026HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER - SIGNED 27.8.2026HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER - SIGNED 27.8.2026HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED - 27.8.2026Tribunal Clerk KokiNo appearance by parties.Judgement delivered in their absence.