[2021] KECPT 544 (KLR)
The tribunal found that the claimant had established her entitlement to a refund of deposits based on her statement of account, which showed a balance of Kshs.303,000 as at 30.1.2020. The respondent failed to provide evidence that the refund had been made or that a notice of withdrawal was not received. The tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECPT 544 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Lydia Njoki Muringih; Respondent: Postmail Co-operative Society Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 375 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the claimant
- Legal Topics
- Refund of Deposits, Cooperative Societies, Member Withdrawal, Burden of Proof
- 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
Lydia Njoki Muringih
Claimant
Postmail Co-operative Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of savings and if so, at what rate.
- 2 Who should meet the costs of the claim?
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that the claimant had established her entitlement to a refund of deposits based on her statement of account, which showed a balance of Kshs.303,000 as at 30.1.2020. The respondent failed to provide evidence that the refund had been made or that a notice of withdrawal was not received. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had not refunded the deposits as alleged and that the claimant was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed, plus costs and interest at court rates.
Court Disposition
judgment for the claimant
Orders
- Judgment entered against the respondent for Kshs.303,000.
- Respondent to pay costs of the claim.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 375 OF 2019
LYDIA NJOKI MURINGIH....................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
POSTMAIL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.....................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This is a claim for refund to deposits, vide a Statement of Claim dated 4. 7.2019, the Claimant has moved the Tribunal seeking for judgment to be entered against the Respondent for Kshs.311,500/= plus costs and interest at court rates. It is the Claimant’s contention that she was a member of the Respondent from January, 2007 to 15. 9.2015. That it was during the course of her membership that she made savings amounting to Kshs.309,000/=.
That on or about June, 2015, she expressed her desire to withdraw three (3) times but the Respondent declined. That despite several indulgence, the Respondent has not refunded the said savings. That she therefore prays for the orders sought to be granted.
Respondent’s Case
Vide the Statement of Defence dated 20. 8.2019, the Respondent has denied ever receiving a Notice of Claimant’s withdrawal. It further proceeded to contend that the Claimant has received her refund of deposits in full and that no claim lies against it.
Issues for determination
We have framed the following issues for determination:
a. Whether the claimant is entitled to refund of savings and if so, at what rate;
b. Who should meet the costs of the claim?
Refund
This is a case of refund of shares. Vide her Statement of Claim, the Claimant prays for a refund of shares amounting to Kshs.311,500/=. However, vide the amended Witness Statement dated 4. 3.2020 and written submissions filed on 24. 1.2020, she has revised this figure to Kshs.303,000/=.
The Respondent has opposed the claim on the grounds that the Claimant did not furnish it with a Notice of Withdrawal so that it has nevertheless refunded the said deposits.
We have considered the claim and the arguments preferred by the parties. We have particularly perused the Claimant’s statement of account dated 3. 1.2020. It shows that the amounts due and owing to the Claimant as at 30. 1.2020 was Kshs.303,000/=. No other material has been provided to prove otherwise.
This leaves us with only one irresistible conclusion that the Respondent has not refunded the deposits as alleged and that the balance as at 30. 1.2020 was Kshs.303,000/=. The Respondent is then entitled to refund the said deposits.
Conclusion
The upshot of the foregoing is that we find that the Claimant has established her case on a balance of probability and hereby enters judgment against the Respondent for Kshs.303,000/=, plus costs and interest at court rates.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 4. 3.2021
HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 4. 3.2021
B. AKUSALA MEMBER SIGNED 4. 3.2021