https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/246

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/246

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction, that electronic service was effective and satisfied fair hearing requirements, and that the Claimant proved the loan, default, and outstanding debt on a balance of probabilities. Because the Respondent offered no rebuttal, judgment was entered for the Claimant for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KECOPT 246 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Hurima Sacco Limited; Respondent: Kevin Clain Onyango Egesa
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case E507 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Co Operative Tribunal Debt Recovery Claim / Judgment After Failed Appearance and No Defence
Outcome
Judgment entered for the Claimant.
Judges
["J Mwatsama", "B Sawe", "F Lotuiya", "M Chesikaw", "PO Aol"]
Legal Topics
Tribunal Jurisdiction, Service of Process by Electronic Means, Default Judgment, Loan Arrears, Proof on a Balance of Probabilities, Costs and Interest
Source Language
en
Co Operative Law Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Tribunal Jurisdiction Service of Process by Electronic Means Default Judgment Loan Arrears Proof on a Balance of Probabilities +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hurima Sacco Limited

Claimant

Kevin Clain Onyango Egesa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Co Operative Tribunal Debt Recovery Claim / Judgment After Failed Appearance and No Defence

  1. 1 Whether the Cooperative Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act.
  2. 2 Whether service of summons and pleadings on the Respondent through WhatsApp, email, and mobile confirmation was sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant proved the loan relationship, default, and outstanding sum claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction, that electronic service was effective and satisfied fair hearing requirements, and that the Claimant proved the loan, default, and outstanding debt on a balance of probabilities. Because the Respondent offered no rebuttal, judgment was entered for the Claimant for the outstanding sum, interest, and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Kshs. 306,649.87 awarded as outstanding loan amount.
  • Interest on Kshs. 306,649.87 at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.