[2021] KECPT 568 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that while the Claimant was entitled to a refund of her deposits and risk fund, she failed to prove entitlement to the full amount claimed. The only credible evidence of the amount due was the Statement of Account dated 1.8.2019, which showed outstanding deposits of Kshs.164,620/=. The Tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECPT 568 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Margaret Adhiambo Ochieng; Respondent: Taraji Sacco Society Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 444 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Claimant for Kshs.190,870/= plus interest and costs.
- Legal Topics
- Sacco Member Deposits, Refund of Contributions, Non Refundable Share Capital
- 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
Margaret Adhiambo Ochieng
Claimant
Taraji Sacco Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of her deposits and risk fund from the Respondent.
- 2 Whether the Respondent owes the Claimant the amount claimed or a lesser sum.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that while the Claimant was entitled to a refund of her deposits and risk fund, she failed to prove entitlement to the full amount claimed. The only credible evidence of the amount due was the Statement of Account dated 1.8.2019, which showed outstanding deposits of Kshs.164,620/=. The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's higher figure for lack of supporting documentation. The Tribunal also held that the risk fund of Kshs.26,250/= was refundable, as the Claimant was alive and no longer a member. However, share capital and plaza share contributions were non-refundable as they formed part of the Sacco's core capital. Judgment was entered for the sum of Kshs.190,870/=...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Claimant for Kshs.190,870/= plus interest and costs.
Orders
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant Kshs.164,620/= being refundable deposits.
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant Kshs.26,250/= being refundable risk fund.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 444 OF 2019
MARGARET ADHIAMBO OCHIENG ...................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TARAJI SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED..............................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Vide the Statement claim dated 24. 1.2019, the Claimant has moved this Tribunal seeking for Judgment to be entered against the Respondent as follows:
a. Kshs.292,150/= being unpaid share contribution together with interest at 21% per annum;
b. Costs.
c. Interest
The Claimant has founded these reliefs on the fact that the Respondent has declined and/or refused to refund her deposits amounting to Kshs.292,150/=.That being a member of the Respondent, she made monthly contributions towards deposit until November 2015 when she applied to withdraw from it. That she had made several demands for refund of the deposit to no avail.
When she appeared before us for hearing on 7. 10. 2020, the Claimant reiterated the averments above.
Respondent’s Case
The Respondent has opposed the claim vide the undated statement of Defence filed on 15. 8.2019. It also send its Chairman Stephen Oluoch to testify in court on 7. 10. 2020,
The gist of the Respondent’s case is that the Claimant is entitled to a refund of Kshs.164, 620/- . That she had been refunded a total sum of Kshs.49,000/=. That the payslip produced by the Claimant should not be relied upon to depict her monthly contributions as the same contain gross deductions/ remittance from her employer (TSC). That the gross remittance include:
a. Deposits
b. Risk fund
c. Plaza share; and
d. Share capital
That the share capital of Kshs.4000/- is non-refundable. That the plaza share of Kshs.5000/= is also non-refundable. That the risk fund of Kshs.26,250/= is also non-refundable.
That at the time the Claimant withdrew membership the Respondent was in financial crisis resulting from mismanagement. That to date, it has not recovered thus cannot refund the deposits in full.
Issues for determination
We have framed the following issues for determination:
a. Whether the Claimant has made out a proper basis to warrant an order for refund of deposits.
b. Whether the Respondent owes the Claimant and if so, to what extent.
c. Who should meet the costs of the claim?
Refund of deposits/shares
It is not in dispute that the Claimant was a member of the Respondent and that she made deposits. What is in dispute is the amount of the said contribution and the outstanding balance. The claimant contends that his outstanding balance is Kshs.292,150/=. The Respondent is, however, of a contrary view. It avers that the claimant owed a sum of Kshs.164,620/=. That in the past, the Claimant has been paid a sum of Kshs.49,000/=. That the following monies are not refundable.
a. Share capital - Kshs.4000/=
b. Plaza share contributions Kshs. 5000/=
c. Risk funds Kshs. 26,250/=
During her testimony in court, the claimant admitted having received a sum of Kshs.31,980/=from the Respondent. That she had also been given a sum of Kshs.24,000/= as interest. That this leaves a balance of Kshs.292,190/=. The Respondent disputes this and contend that the Claimant had been refunded a sum of Kshs.59,000/=.
For starters, we agree with the Respondent that the Share Capital and funds applied towards construction of the Plaza are non-refundable. These form part of the core capital of the Respondent which can only be transferred upon withdrawal of membership.
As for the risk fund, we do not find any basis with which the Respondent is withholding the money. These are monies deducted from the Claimant to take care of eventualities of death in the course of her membership. She is now no longer a member and is still alive. She is thus entitled to be refunded the said monies.
As regards deposits, we have perused the Claimant’s Statement of Account dated 1. 8.2019. It shows that her outstanding deposits as at 5. 7.2018 was Kshs.164,620. We have perused the Claimant’s bundle of documents and have not come across one which supports her claim for Kshs.292,150/=.
We thus find that the only document showing the actual monies due and owing to the Claimant is the above statement of accounts.
Conclusion
The upshot of the foregoing is that we find that the Claimant has established her case on a balance of probability and thus enter judgment in her favour and against the Respondent as follows:
a. Deposits Kshs.164,620; and
b. Risk fund Kshs. 26,250
Total Kshs.190,870/=
The Claimant is also awarded interest at court rates and costs as well.
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
No appearance for parties
Hon. B. Kimemia Chairperson Signed 4. 3.2021