[2024] KECPT 227 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that while the claimant was a member of the respondent and had made substantial payments towards the purchase of land, there was no evidence that she was informed of or agreed to the respondent's cooperative model, which conditioned delivery of land on all buyers completing payment. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECPT 227 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Elizabeth Wanjiku Hinga; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 62 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in part; refund of Kshs. 1,023,500 with interest and costs ordered.
- Judges
- BM Kimemia, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Refund of Purchase Price, Cooperative Society Disputes, Contractual Obligations
- 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
Elizabeth Wanjiku Hinga
Applicant
Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to specific performance and delivery of possession of the land purchased from the respondent.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of the sums paid to the respondent for the land.
- 3 Whether the respondent's cooperative model can lawfully delay or deny the claimant's rights to the land or refund.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that while the claimant was a member of the respondent and had made substantial payments towards the purchase of land, there was no evidence that she was informed of or agreed to the respondent's cooperative model, which conditioned delivery of land on all buyers completing payment. The respondent's failure to deliver possession or refund the claimant's money, despite admitting receipt of payments, was unjustified. Specific performance was deemed inappropriate due to the respondent's inability to deliver the land, but the claimant was entitled to a refund of all sums paid, with interest and costs. The Tribunal emphasized that a buyer cannot be prejudiced by internal...
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in part; refund of Kshs. 1,023,500 with interest and costs ordered.
Orders
- A refund of Kshs. 1,023,500 to the claimant.
- Costs of the suit and interest from the date of filing at Tribunal rates.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Hinga v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited (Tribunal Case 62 of 2020) [2024] KECPT 227 (KLR) (7 March 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECPT 227 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 62 of 2020
BM Kimemia, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
March 7, 2024
Between
Elizabeth Wanjiku Hinga
Claimant
and
Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Respondent
Judgment
1. The matter for determination is a Plaint dated 15th January 2020. In the Plaint, the Plaintiff avers that she was a member of the Respondent, member number 24166, that she accepted an offer from the Respondent and commenced steps to purchase a parcel of land dubbed “Ruiru Ridge” with the hope of acquiring half an acre of the said parcel for Kshs. 6,500,000/=. It is the Plaintiff's case that she paid Kshs. 854,000/= to the Respondent and an additional Kshs. 169,000/-. The subject land was changed to “Malindi Lulu Project” and although the Plaintiff avers that she did not object to the change, she has never been given the vacant possession for the land. The Claimant therefore prays for:a.An order for immediate specific performance of the agreement and delivery of possession of land.b.In the alternative, a refund of Kshs. 1,023,500/=.c.Interest on (b) above at court rates as from 20th September, 2017 until payment in full.d.Costs of the suit and interest thereon.e.Any other or further relief as the court may deem necessary to grant.The Claimant filed a witness statement and a List of Documents in support of her claim.The Respondent filed a Memorandum of Appearance dated 13th March 2020 and filed on 5th June 2020, and a Statement of Defence. In the Statement of Defence, the Respondent admits that the Claimant was its member, however avers that it did not receive a full payment for the plot of land from the Respondent. The Respondents also avers that the Sacco uses a Cooperative model.
2. During hearing, the Claimant testified and produced her Witness Statement and List of Documents for adoption by the court. In her testimony, the Claimant reiterated her claims in the Statement of Claim. When asked about a model used by the respondents in the purchase of land, the Claimant responded that she did not know. The Respondents did not present any witnesses during the hearing. Both parties agreed to file written submissions.
3. Both parties filed their submissions.
Analysis 4. The Tribunal has noted all the pleadings filed and the evidence produced during the hearing. The submissions of the Claimants and Respondents have also been duly considered.
5. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was a member of the Respondent. The Respondent admits to this fact. It is also not in dispute that the Claimant made payments to the Respondent. The Respondent did not deny the receipts the Claimant claimed were issued by the Respondent. The Respondent’s only issue is that the Claimant did not finish paying the purchase price, and that there is a model that the Respondent normally works with, whereby land can only be given to a buyer when all the buyers in that lot have cleared the purchase price.
6. This is a contract whereby the Claimant purchased land from the Respondent and paid an initial sum of money. The party who was in control of the land is the Respondent as it is the one in touch with the initial owner of the land and all other intended purchasers. There is also no evidence that the Claimant was informed of this model, or that she accepted that the physical ownership of her land would depend on other purchasers. The buyer has no control at all of the other purchasers since she is not a privy to the contract between the Respondent and them. We feel that ordering for specific performance, for a land that the Respondent has admitted that the challenge of performance is the other buyers, would not be appropriate since it will be faced by the very challenge that has made it impossible to show the Claimant his land.
7. The upshot of the above is that we find merit in the Claimant’s claim. We order as follows:a.A refund of Kshs. 1,023,500/=.c.Costs of suit and interest from date of filing suit at Tribunal rates.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024. HON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA - CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 7. 3.2024HON. BEATRICE SAWE - MEMBER SIGNED 7. 3. 2024HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA - MEMBER SIGNED 7. 3.2024HON. PHILIP GICHUKI - MEMBER SIGNED 7. 3.2024HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW - MEMBER SIGNED 7. 3.2024HON. PAUL AOL - MEMBER SIGNED 7. 3.2024TRIBUNAL CLERK - JEMIMAHMiss Macharia advocate holding brief for Ms. Kale for ClaimantEchom advocate holding brief for Mwangi for RespondentHON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 7. 3.2024Echom advocate : I pray for 30 days stay of execution.Macharia advocate: No objection.Order: 30 days stay of execution granted.HON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA - CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 7. 3.2024