[2025] KEHC 7346 (KLR)
The High Court found that while Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd is a legal entity capable of suing and being sued, the evidence presented—specifically, the list showing the amounts attributable to individual members—demonstrated that the funds in the account were not the society's general property but belonged to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 7346 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Githenya Mindi; Respondent: Paul Mwangi Gachomba; Respondent: Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd; Garnishee: Co-Operative Bank
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyandarua
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E004 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Garnishee Proceedings, Attachment of Funds, Legal Personality of Cooperatives, Separate Legal Entity
- 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
David Githenya Mindi
Appellant
Paul Mwangi Gachomba
Respondent
Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd
Respondent
Co-Operative Bank
Garnishee
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the account of the 2nd respondent with the garnishee bank could be attached to satisfy a judgment debt.
- 2 Whether Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd is a distinct legal entity whose accounts are separate from its members and thus liable to attachment.
- 3 Whether the funds in the 2nd respondent's account belonged to the society or its individual members.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd is a legal entity capable of suing and being sued, the evidence presented—specifically, the list showing the amounts attributable to individual members—demonstrated that the funds in the account were not the society's general property but belonged to individual members. The appellant's argument that the lack of objection from members justified attachment was rejected, as the members were not invited to participate in the proceedings. The trial magistrate's decision to decline the attachment was upheld, as the funds were not shown to be available for attachment to satisfy the appellant's claim against the society. The appeal...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Mindi v Gachomba & another; Co-operative Bank (Garnishee) (Civil Appeal E004 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 7346 (KLR) (Civ) (29 May 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 7346 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyandarua
Civil
Civil Appeal E004 of 2023
KW Kiarie, J
May 29, 2025
Between
David Githenya Mindi
Appellant
and
Paul Mwangi Gachomba
1st Respondent
Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd
2nd Respondent
and
Co-Operative Bank
Garnishee
(Being an Appeal from the ruling and order in Engineer Senior Principal Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 42 of 2023 by Hon. H.O. Barasa –Senior Principal Magistrate)
Judgment
1. On the 3rd day of October 2023, Hon. Barasa delivered a ruling on the application dated the 14th day of June 2023.
2. The appellant was aggrieved by the ruling and filed this appeal. The firm of Mwaura Kamau & Company Advocates represented him. He raised the following grounds of appeal:a.The learned honourable magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the account of the 2nd respondent with the 1st garnishee could not be attached.b.The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to hold that the 2nd respondent was a lawful legal entity capable of suing and being sued, and that its accounts were separate and distinct from those of its members and, therefore, capable of being attached.c.The learned honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to find that the 2nd respondent’s account with the 1st garnishee that was being attached belonged to the 2nd respondent and not its members.d.The learned honourable magistrate erred in law in holding that the funds in the account of the 2nd respondent with the 1st garnishee belonged to the members, yet there was no evidence to support the same.e.The learned honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in concluding contrary to the evidence and the law.f.The learned honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to hold that the 2nd respondent was a distinct legal entity separate from its members.g.The learned honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in holding that the funds in the 2nd respondent’s account with the 1st garnishee could not be attached since it belonged to the members, yet no member had objected to the attachment.
3. The 2nd respondent did not file any response or submissions.
4. This Court is the first appellate court. I understand my duty to evaluate the entire evidence on record, bearing in mind that I had no advantage in seeing the witnesses testify and observing their demeanour. I will be guided by the pronouncements in the case of Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd. [1965] EA 123, where it was held that the first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence presented before the trial court, assess it, and make its conclusions in the matter.
5. Satima Co-Operative Society Ltd., the 2nd respondent, has the legal capacity to sue and be sued. This was not in issue before the learned trial magistrate. The contention was whether the monies held in a Bank account in the name of the second respondent were liable to be attached to settle a claim by the 2nd respondent.
6. The second respondent claimed that the monies belonged to individual co-operators and produced a list tabulating the amount of each member. The total is Kshs. 3,817,230. This was the amount the appellant sought to attach, but the court declined to authorize it.
7. A cooperative society is a legal entity, but remains distinct. Membership is generally open to anyone who shares a common interest and is willing to participate and adhere to the society's rules and principles. This uniqueness was demonstrated when the list of the members and their worth was exhibited. I find it simplistic for the appellant to argue that neither member objected to the attachment. The members were not invited to give their input.
8. The decision of the learned trial magistrate cannot be faulted.
9. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025. KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE.JUDGE.