[2025] KECPT 297 (KLR)
The Tribunal held that, despite the respondent's failure to appear or defend, the claimant bore the burden of proving entitlement to the reliefs sought. The claimant successfully proved the outstanding loan balance, entitling it to a refund of Kshs 1,465,737.71, together with costs and interest. However, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 297 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco; Respondent: David Monanda
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E476 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Claim / Judgment After Formal Proof
- Outcome
- Claim partly allowed; liquidated sum, costs, and interest awarded; general damages denied.
- Judges
- BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Loan Default, Debt Recovery, Burden of Proof, General Damages, Formal Proof, Costs and Interest
- 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
Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco
Applicant
David Monanda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Judgment After Formal Proof
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of the outstanding loan balance from the respondent.
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to general damages for the respondent's default.
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal held that, despite the respondent's failure to appear or defend, the claimant bore the burden of proving entitlement to the reliefs sought. The claimant successfully proved the outstanding loan balance, entitling it to a refund of Kshs 1,465,737.71, together with costs and interest. However, the Tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove any specific loss or damage beyond the opportunity cost of the withheld funds, which is an expected risk in the business of lending. As such, the claim for general damages was not merited and was dismissed. The Tribunal thus granted the liquidated sum, costs, and interest, but declined to award general damages.
Court Disposition
Claim partly allowed; liquidated sum, costs, and interest awarded; general damages denied.
Orders
- An immediate refund of Kshs 1,465,737.71 by the respondent to the claimant.
- The claimant is awarded costs of the claim.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco v Monanda (Tribunal Case E476 of 2024) [2025] KECPT 297 (KLR) (Civ) (29 May 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 297 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Civil
Tribunal Case E476 of 2024
BM Kimemia, Chair, Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki & PO Aol, Members
May 29, 2025
Between
Kenyatta Matibabu Sacco
Claimant
and
David Monanda
Respondent
Judgment
1. The matter for determination is a Statement of Claim dated 16th April 2024. In the Statement of Claim, the Claimant claims that the Respondent was its member, member number KMAT00004. That the Respondent took various loans from the Claimant, which he has defaulted. The Claimant is aggrieved from the default and prays fora.Refund of the loan balances in the sum of Kshs 1,465,737. 71/=.b.General damages to be assessed by the courtc.Costs of the suit.d.Interest on (a) and (b) at the Sacco’s rates from the date of filing this reference until payment in full; ande.Any other relief that the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances.The Claimant filed a witness statement and a List of Documents in support of their claim.
2. The Respondent did not enter an appearance or file any response to the Claim. The claimant requested for judgement on 13th August 2024 and an interlocutory judgment was delivered on 4th December 2024 in favour of the Claimant as against the Respondent. The matter was set for formal proof for prayer (b) on the 19th March 2025.
3. During the formal proof hearing, the Claimant adopted his witness statement and produced his documents. He requested the court to award them general damages because the Respondent’s non payment has affected him in the society.
Analysis 4. The question before this Tribunal is whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought. The Claimant’s claim is for the payment of general damages. The prayer on liquidated sum has already been dispensed with.
5. The Claimant testified in formal proof, and we ask ourselves, what is formal proof?
6. In the case of Samson S. Maitai & another v African Safari Club Ltd & another [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”.
7. 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 he is entitled to general damages.
8. General damages are awarded in respect of such damages as the law presumes to result from the infringement of a legal right or duty. Damages must be proved but the claimant may not be able to quantify exactly any particular items in it. The question before us is whether the Claimant has proved that he suffered damage resulting from the Respondent’s default to warrant the award of general damages. The Claimant has not shown this court the particular elements of loss suffered apart from the opportunity costs of the moneys withheld by the Respondent. Such denial, in our view is expected in a financial institution whose business includes lending money like the Claimant herein. The prayer for general damages therefore fails.
9. The Upshot is that we find Claimant’s Claim partly merited, and make the following ordersa.An immediate refund of Kshs 1,465,737. 71/-b.The Claimant is awarded costs of this claim together with interest from the time of filing suit till payment in full.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2025. HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 5.2025HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 5.2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 29. 5.2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 29. 5.2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 29. 5.2025HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 29. 5.2025Tribunal Clerk MutaiWashika advocate for the claimant.HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 29. 5.2025