[2025] KECPT 244 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 244 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the claimant had established her membership and the amount of her contributions, and had properly given notice of withdrawal and requested a refund. The respondent's reliance on an AGM resolution to suspend refunds was rejected as it could not lawfully override the claimant's statutory right...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 244 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jane W Metuo; Respondent: Metropolitan National Sacco Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 780/E1026 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the claimant
Judges
BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Sacco Member Refunds, Share Capital Repayment, Liquidity Constraints, Annual General Meeting Resolutions
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Sacco Member Refunds Share Capital Repayment Liquidity Constraints Annual General Meeting Resolutions

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane W Metuo

Applicant

Metropolitan National Sacco Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of her share contributions from the respondent Sacco.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's AGM resolution to suspend refunds for two years is a valid defence against the claimant's demand for payment.
  3. 3 Whether alleged mismanagement or misappropriation by former officials can justify withholding the claimant's refund.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the claimant had established her membership and the amount of her contributions, and had properly given notice of withdrawal and requested a refund. The respondent's reliance on an AGM resolution to suspend refunds was rejected as it could not lawfully override the claimant's statutory right to repayment. The Tribunal further held that allegations of mismanagement or liquidity constraints, while explaining the respondent's financial position, did not constitute a valid legal defence to the claim. The Tribunal was satisfied with the claimant's documentary evidence and the respondent's admission of liability, and accordingly entered judgment for the claimant for the...

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the claimant Kshs. 441,485.71.
  • The respondent shall pay interest at Tribunal rates from the date of filing the claim until payment in full.