[2024] KECPT 219 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 219 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had produced sufficient documentary evidence, including a signed contract, share certificate, and proof of payment, establishing both his membership and investment in the Respondent's aquaculture project. The Respondent's denial of receipt of funds was not supported by any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 219 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Kiruhi Kingori; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 471 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant; refund of Kshs. 300,000/=, costs and interest awarded, 30 days stay of execution granted.
Judges
BM Kimemia, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, B Sawe, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Cooperative Societies, Investment Contracts, Refund of Investment, Breach of Contract
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Cooperative Societies Investment Contracts Refund of Investment Breach of Contract

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kiruhi Kingori

Applicant

Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent breached the Contracted Investor Management Agreement with the Claimant.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of Kshs. 300,000/= invested in the aquaculture project.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to lost earnings as per the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had produced sufficient documentary evidence, including a signed contract, share certificate, and proof of payment, establishing both his membership and investment in the Respondent's aquaculture project. The Respondent's denial of receipt of funds was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the contractual obligation to refund the investment was clear, and the Respondent's by-laws regarding non-refundability of shares did not apply to the specific investment contract. The Claimant was therefore entitled to a refund of Kshs. 300,000/=. The Tribunal also recognized the contractual provision for returns on investment but did not...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant; refund of Kshs. 300,000/=, costs and interest awarded, 30 days stay of execution granted.

Orders

  • The Respondent shall refund Kshs. 300,000/= to the Claimant.
  • The Respondent shall pay costs and interest on the claim to the Claimant.