https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/325
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had proved his entitlement to the refund through the membership and salary deduction evidence, while the Respondent offered only denials and a stale resolution suspending refunds. The two-year suspension had lapsed, no further resolution was shown, and financial hardship was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KECOPT 325 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: JOHN NJUNGUNA KINUTHIA; Respondent: METROPOLITAN NATIONAL SACCO LIMITED
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case (KSM) E005 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Co Operative Tribunal Claim for Refund of Member Deposits / Judgment After Written Submissions
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for the Claimant
- Judges
- ["J Mwatsama", "B Sawe", "PO Aol", "F Lotuiya", "M Chesikaw"]
- Legal Topics
- Refund of Member Deposits, Withdrawal From Sacco Membership, Effect of Internal Resolution Suspending Refunds, Interest on Refund, Costs
- 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
JOHN NJUNGUNA KINUTHIA
Claimant
METROPOLITAN NATIONAL SACCO LIMITED
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Co Operative Tribunal Claim for Refund of Member Deposits / Judgment After Written Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant proved entitlement to refund of his deposits
- 2 Whether the Respondent's resolution suspending refunds could defeat the Claimant's right to payment
- 3 Whether financial hardship and alleged mismanagement justified withholding the refund
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had proved his entitlement to the refund through the membership and salary deduction evidence, while the Respondent offered only denials and a stale resolution suspending refunds. The two-year suspension had lapsed, no further resolution was shown, and financial hardship was not a legal basis to keep member funds indefinitely. The Claimant was therefore entitled to judgment for the full deposit amount with costs and interest.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for the Claimant
Orders
- Respondent to refund Kshs. 288,169.00 to the Claimant
- Respondent to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT KISUMU** **TRIBUNAL CASE NO. E005 OF 2024** **(Hon. J. Mwatsama- Chairperson, Hon. B. Sawe- Member, Hon. F. Lotuiya- Member, Hon. P. Aol- Member, Hon. M. Chesikaw-Member)** **JOHN NJUNGUNA KINUTHIA ……………..…..…………….…CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **METROPOLITAN NATIONAL SACCO LIMITED……………. RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL** 1. The matter for determination is Statement of Claim dated 12th March 2024. The Claimant states he was a member of Respondent Society under membership number 47667 having accumulated savings of Kshs. 288,169.00/= which was deducted from his salary monthly. On 9th May 2022, he voluntarily withdrew from the Sacco membership with a follow up demand letter dated 22nd June 2023 demanding payment which the unresponsiveness led to filing of the claim. 1. Claimant claim is for: 1. Refund of deposits amounting to Kshs.288,169.00/= 2. Interest at 14% from May 2022 till payment in full 3. Costs of the claim and interest thereon Claimant filed Witness Statement dated 12th March 2024 and Claimant’s List of Documents dated 12th March 2024 to support their claim which included: 1. A copy of identity card 2. A copy of payslip dated February 2022 3. Withdrawal letter dated 09/05/2022 4. Demand letter to Metropolitan National Sacco Limited dated 22/06/2023. 5. The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence sworn on 6th June 2024 stating the Respondent denied all allegations by the Claimant and Claimant has not proved Respondent has their savings or deposits. The Respondent state the Claimant demand is untenable following resolution made by members to halt refunds. Respondent Society avers to have financial challenges as a result of mismanagement by its officials. 1. Respondent prays for the case to be dismissed. No documents were filed by Respondent in support of their Defence. The matter being one of refunds the Tribunal directed for case to be dispensed off by way of written submissions. Claimant filed written submissions dated 4/6/2026 and Respondent filed written submissions dated 13/11/2024. Claimant written submissions submitted that the resolution of Respondent Society to suspend refunds was not binding to its members. Claimant states s resolution cannot retrospectively deprive a member of a vested right to a refund upon resignation. Claimant relied on the **case of** **Elijah Adol & 2 Others -vs- Rift Valley Sports Club (Civil Case No. 253 of 2001)** where the court held a resolution was binding only when the company’s Act and Articles of Association are followed. The Claimant thus state the Respondent defence of resolution and economic hardship ae not sustainable in law. 2. The Respondent in their written submission stated the Respondent Society made a resolution dated 21/4/2022 suspending all member refunds and this is binding to all members and cannot be applied selectively. The Respondent relied on the **case of Foss -vs- Harbottle** where the court refused to interfere in management of the company at the instance of a minority of members who are dissatisfied with the conduct of the company affairs by the majority or by Board of Directors. It cannot be the courts function to take right decisions and substantiate its opinion for those of the directors and the majority for the members. The Claimant to evidence his claim from payslip February 2022 to show deduction and withdrawal letter dated 9/6/2022. 3. The Respondent other than mere denials and the fact of a resolution passed by the society to halt refunds there is no other reason plausible. The resolution dated 21/4/2022 was for two (2) years. It is now four (4) years since the said resolution was made. We are not informed of any other resolution as time spent on the same has lapsed. Financial constraints cannot be a reason for non-refund of a members’ money. The Society is still a going concern and is still receiving funds from its members. **UPSHOT** Judgment is entered in favour of Claimant against Respondent for **Kshs. 288,169.00/=** plus cost and interest. Judgment dated and delivered *virtually* at **Nyeri** this **20th** day of **August, 2026.** **Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed 20/8/2026** **Hon. B. Sawe Member Signed 20/8/2026** **Hon. P. Aol Member Signed 20/8/2026** **Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 20/8/2026** **Hon. M. Chesikaw Member Signed 20/8/2026** Court Assistant – J. Koki No appearance by parties. Judgment delivered in their absence. **Hon. J. Mwatsama Chairperson Signed 20/8/2026**