[2025] KECPT 357 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 357 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that while the Claimant admitted defaulting on the loan, there was insufficient evidence that the vehicle KBC 431G was expressly and properly offered as security for the loan. The only reference was a notation of 'logbook security' without specific details in the loan agreement. The Respondent failed to perfect the security as required by its own policy. Therefore, the repossession of the vehicle by the 1st Respondent was unlawful. The Claimant was entitled to damages for loss of user, but the amount claimed was excessive and unsupported by evidence of continuous daily use. The Tribunal awarded damages based on a reasonable estimate of 3 days per week at Kshs. 7,000 per...

Citation
[2025] KECPT 357 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Reuben Kinyua Mikamati; Respondent: Solution Sacco; Respondent: Viewline Auctioneers; Respondent: Kairiria Munoru t/a K.K. Motors
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case 484/E288 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant on main claim; Judgment for Respondent on counterclaim.
Judges
Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Loan Default, Security Interest, Repossession of Property, Damages for Loss of User
Source Language
English
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Loan Default Security Interest Repossession of Property Damages for Loss of User

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reuben Kinyua Mikamati

Applicant

Solution Sacco

Respondent

Viewline Auctioneers

Respondent

Kairiria Munoru t/a K.K. Motors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Claimant default in his loan repayment.
  2. 2 Was the suit vehicle KBC 431G offered as security for the Claimant’s loan.
  3. 3 Was the repossession of the suit vehicle KBC 431G by the 1st Respondent lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that while the Claimant admitted defaulting on the loan, there was insufficient evidence that the vehicle KBC 431G was expressly and properly offered as security for the loan. The only reference was a notation of 'logbook security' without specific details in the loan agreement. The Respondent failed to perfect the security as required by its own policy. Therefore, the repossession of the vehicle by the 1st Respondent was unlawful. The Claimant was entitled to damages for loss of user, but the amount claimed was excessive and unsupported by evidence of continuous daily use. The Tribunal awarded damages based on a reasonable estimate of 3 days per week at Kshs. 7,000 per...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant on main claim; Judgment for Respondent on counterclaim.

Orders

  • 1st Respondent to release motor vehicle KBC 431G to the Claimant within 14 days.
  • 1st Respondent to pay Claimant Kshs. 5,208,000 as damages for loss of user.