[2025] KECPT 245 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 245 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Claimant paid Kshs. 855,000/= as a deposit for the Respondent’s Mtwapa housing project, but there was no written sale agreement or letter of offer. The funds were used to purchase land for the project as per the Respondent’s AGM resolutions. The Tribunal held that the Claimant, as a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 245 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Boniface Karanja; Respondent: KMA Housing Cooperative Sacco Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 753 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Housing Cooperatives, Deposit Refunds, Implied Contracts, Member Resolutions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Housing Cooperatives Deposit Refunds Implied Contracts Member Resolutions

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boniface Karanja

Applicant

KMA Housing Cooperative Sacco Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of Kshs. 855,000/= deposited for a house in the Respondent’s housing project.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a written sale agreement or by-laws affects the Claimant's entitlement to a refund.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is bound by the Respondent's AGM resolutions and by-laws regarding withdrawal and refund.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimant paid Kshs. 855,000/= as a deposit for the Respondent’s Mtwapa housing project, but there was no written sale agreement or letter of offer. The funds were used to purchase land for the project as per the Respondent’s AGM resolutions. The Tribunal held that the Claimant, as a member, was bound by the cooperative’s by-laws and AGM decisions, which did not provide for a refund of deposits once invested in the project. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s position that the Claimant could either top up the purchase price to acquire a house or find another member to buy him out, but was not entitled to a refund. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim as contained in the Statement of Claim dated 13/12/2019 is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.