[2025] KECPT 189 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the claimant had established membership and had provided sufficient notice of withdrawal and demand for refund, as evidenced by the delivery of the demand letter. The respondent's reliance on internal mismanagement and AGM resolutions suspending refunds does not override the statutory and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 189 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dickson Muriuki Kabuchoru; Respondent: Metropolitan National Sacco Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 135. E 249 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Refund Claim / Interlocutory Judgment; Further Documents Ordered
- Outcome
- Interlocutory order; final determination pending further documentation.
- Judges
- Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Sacco Member Refunds, Deposit Recovery, Loan Offset, Member Withdrawal
- 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
Dickson Muriuki Kabuchoru
Applicant
Metropolitan National Sacco Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refund Claim / Interlocutory Judgment; Further Documents Ordered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund from the respondent upon withdrawal of membership.
- 2 Whether the claimant gave sufficient notice to warrant payment of the refund.
- 3 Whether the respondent owes the claimant the amount claimed after offsetting any outstanding loan.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the claimant had established membership and had provided sufficient notice of withdrawal and demand for refund, as evidenced by the delivery of the demand letter. The respondent's reliance on internal mismanagement and AGM resolutions suspending refunds does not override the statutory and contractual obligation to refund a withdrawing member after offsetting any outstanding loan. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the account statements and required further documentation from the respondent to determine the precise amount due. The Tribunal thus ordered the respondent to file the claimant's loan and account statements within 14 days to enable a final...
Court Disposition
Interlocutory order; final determination pending further documentation.
Orders
- Respondent to file the claimant's Loan Account Statement and Statement of Account within 14 days.
- Mention scheduled for 10 April 2025 for further directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kabuchoru v Metropolitan National Sacco Limited (Tribunal Case 135. E 249 of 2024) [2025] KECPT 189 (KLR) (28 January 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 189 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 135. E 249 of 2024
Janet Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
January 28, 2025
Between
Dickson Muriuki Kabuchoru
Claimant
and
Metropolitan National Sacco Limited
Respondent
Judgment
1. The matter for determination is Statement of Claim dated 3. 4.2024 filed on 12. 4.2024. Claimant avers to be a member of Respondent and is member No.53412. The Claimant avers he withdrew from Respondent on 3. 6.2019 as well as with a proposal to balance off his loan with his deposits. The Respondent declined however that caused him to send the letter via 645. Claimant further states upon set off he found that Kshs.100,000/= was unjustly deducted. On several occasions the Claimant visited the Respondent office without success. The Claimant claim is for:a.The said sum of Kshs. 2,509,747. 90/=b.Costs of the suit and interest until payment in full.c.Any other relief so deemed appropriate by this Honourable Tribunal.Claimant filed witness statement dated 3. 4.2024 and Claimant list of documents dated 3. 4.2024 filed on 12. 4.2024 which documents are:-1. Withdrawal letter2. Balancing off letter3. Ceasation of contributions letter4. Statements (BOSA &FOSA)
2. The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 8. 5.2024 on 24. 5.2024 to which the Respondent denied the Claimant’s claim. They further stated that Claimant has not proved the Respondent has his deposits. Respondent stated Annual General Meeting suspended all refunds and Claimant is bound by it. Further Respondent avers Claimant has never made an official demand of their refund. Respondent further avers Respondent Society has been through turmoil and financial challenge and is now overwhelmed by several applications seeking to withdraw from the Society as a result of mismanagement by previous committee and decision is subject to Judicial Review in the High Court. The Respondent needs to have a structured approach to handle all outstanding matters.
3. The matter being one of refunds the parties were directed to file written submissions to dispose of the suit. The Claimant filed written submissions on 2. 11. 2024 and Respondent file written submission on 11. 10. 2024 together with their list of documents dated 11. 10. 2024. Issues for DeterminationIssue oneWhether the Claimant are entitled to the refund?Issue twoWhat amount does Respondent owe the Claimant?Issue one – Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund.This issue shall be discussed in three limbs.
4. One – Does the statement of Defence by Respondent hold any waters? The matter being one of refund and Respondent alluding the fact that there was mismanagement by previous Committee is neither here nor there. The management of the Respondent and the terms of embezzlement of funds if any is an issue the management has to deal with.
5. The Claimant and/or membership cannot be dragged into the management wrangles and/or mismanagement. It is clear that the Claimant saved up with Respondent. He gave notice and ought to bet their refunds back. It would be unfair for members to not get their dues because of a few misfits within the management Committee.
6. The second limb is whether the Claimant gave sufficient notice to warrant his refunds being paid. The Claimants in his documents we confirm next to the demand letter attached is the delivery start from Wells Fargo dated 4. 6.2019 which bears the name of consignor as Claimant that is, Dickson Muriuki to consignee that is, Metropolitan Sacco. With this we are convinced that indeed the demand letter was sent.
7. The third limb to consider is whether the loan was paid off. The Claimant disclosed he had a loan which was to be offset from his shares/deposits. As such the Claimant in his List of Documents we have FOSA Account Statement and BOSA Account statement. The Claimant filed Statement of Account as at 23. 7.2024 which showed as at 11. 8.2020 the refund was to be Ksh.2,409,749. 90/=. We have interrogated the figures in the Loan Account Statement and the Statement of Account and the same need further interrogation.
8. We order for Respondent to file the Claimant’s Loan Account Statement and Statement of Account within 14 days to enable us determine the Claim.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 28. 1.2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 28. 1.2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 28. 1.2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 28. 1.2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 28. 1.2025HON. PAUL AOL MEMBER SIGNED 28. 1.2025Tribunal Clerk JonahNo appearance by parties.Mention on 10. 4.2025. Notice to issueHON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 28. 1.2025.