Mugo v Chania Kibwezi Travellers Sacco [2025] KECPT 380 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 380 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Panel
- Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Case number
- Tribunal Case 315 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Panel
- Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Case number
- Tribunal Case 315 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that while the claimant was expelled and sought release of his vehicles, evidence showed that three of the four vehicles had already been released, leaving only one (KAR 637F) in the respondent's custody. The Tribunal ordered its release. The claim for offsetting the loan with savings was denied as it would interfere with the contractual loan arrangement, and the savings were insufficient to clear the loan. The claim for loss of income was rejected due to lack of evidence. The respondent's counterclaim for loan arrears was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Tribunal awarded costs to the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay storage charges for the retained vehicle.
Court disposition
Claim partially allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
Orders
- The respondent to release motor vehicle registration no. KAR 637F to the claimant within 30 days.
- The respondent to pay storage charges for the retained vehicle.
- The respondent to bear the costs of the case.
02
Material facts
Parties
Joseph Kamau Mugo
Applicant Counsel: NkomejimanaChania Kibwezi Travellers Sacco
Respondent Counsel: Kiarie JoshuaAmounts and remedies
- Claimant's Outstanding Loan (as at August 2020): KES 1,926,807
- Claimant's Savings (as at August 2020): KES 1,090,182
- Claim for Loss of Income (rejected): KES 375,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent unlawfully retained the claimant's vehicles after expulsion.
- 02
Whether the claimant is entitled to offset his loan balance with his savings.
- 03
Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund for alleged loss of income due to vehicle retention.
- 04
Whether the respondent's counterclaim for loan arrears is sustainable.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The claimant argued that he was unlawfully expelled from the respondent Sacco and that the respondent continued to retain his five vehicles on the NTSA portal, despite only one vehicle being security for the loan. He sought the release of four vehicles, offsetting his loan with his savings, and a refund for loss of income. He admitted the calculation for loss of income was not documented and requested payment of dividends for 2019.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the claimant had an outstanding loan and that his vehicles were held as security. They asserted readiness to release the vehicles upon loan clearance and denied holding all five vehicles as security. The respondent alleged the claimant defaulted on his loan since 2018 and attempted to withdraw vehicles to defraud the Sacco. They maintained that the claimant's savings were insufficient to offset the loan and sought repayment of arrears and welfare contributions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Kenyan law of evidence; Tribunal practice
A party seeking damages must provide sufficient evidence to support the quantum claimed.
- 02
Cooperative Societies Act; contract law
Security interests over property must be released upon satisfaction of the underlying obligation or as per contract terms.
- 03
Contract law; Tribunal jurisprudence
Tribunals should not interfere with contractual loan arrangements unless there is clear evidence of illegality or unfairness.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that while the claimant was expelled and sought release of his vehicles, evidence showed that three of the four vehicles had already been released, leaving only one (KAR 637F) in the respondent's custody. The Tribunal ordered its release. The claim for offsetting the loan with savings was denied as it would interfere with the contractual loan arrangement, and the savings were insufficient to clear the loan. The claim for loss of income was rejected due to lack of evidence. The respondent's counterclaim for loan arrears was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Tribunal awarded costs to the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay storage charges for the retained vehicle.
Obiter and limits
- Tribunals are reluctant to interfere with contractual loan arrangements unless there is clear evidence of unfairness or illegality.
- A claim for loss of income must be supported by documentary evidence to be successful.
- The respondent's willingness to negotiate did not absolve them from the obligation to release vehicles not held as security.
Court disposition
Claim partially allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
- The respondent to release motor vehicle registration no. KAR 637F to the claimant within 30 days.
- The respondent to pay storage charges for the retained vehicle.
- The respondent to bear the costs of the case.
Source and reliance status
Cooperative Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Cooperative Tribunal
Judgment
Mugo v Chania Kibwezi Travellers Sacco (Tribunal Case 315 of 2020) [2025] KECPT 380 (KLR) (10 July 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 380 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 315 of 2020
Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
July 10, 2025
Between
Joseph Kamau Mugo
Claimant
and
Chania Kibwezi Travellers Sacco
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Claimant’s case is instituted vide the Amended Statement of 25th August, 2021 wherein the Claimant is seeking the release of his four out of five vehicles from the Respondent’s National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) Portal. He is also praying for an order to the Respondent to offset his savings worth his loan outstanding and a refund of Kshs. 375,000/=, being loss of income for his 5 vehicles for 15 days from the date of expulsion.
2. The Claimant has also filed documents vide a Bundle of Documents dated 23/9/2020 and a Supporting Affidavit dated 23/9/2020 in support of his Claim.
3. The Claimant’s case came up for hearing on 23/4/2025, wherein the Claimant maintained that he was unlawfully expelled but is not ready to rejoin the Respondent Sacco.
4. He admitted that the calculation of losses of Kshs. 375,000/= was not documented.
5. He averred that he had a loan balance and savings which he prayed to be offset to leave him a loan balance of Kshs. 793,584/=.
6. He also requested that the Respondent pays him his dividends for 2019.
7. In their Written Submissions dated 9/5/2025, the Respondents states that as at August 2020, the Claimant had an outstanding loan of Kshs. 1,926,807/= and savings of Kshs. 1,090,182/= with the Respondent.
8. That on 27/7/2020, the Claimant wrote to the Respondent requesting to withdraw 3 out of his 5 vehicles from the Respondent.
9. Arising from this, the Respondent on 4/8/2020 illegally expelled the Claimant but continued to retain the 5 vehicles when only one of the vehicles KBC 315F was to act as security for the loan.
10. The Claimant states that he is not interested in being a member of the Respondent.
Respondent’s Case 11. The Respondent’s case is based on the Respondent’s response to the Statement of Claim and Counter Claim dated 12/11/2020.
12. The Respondent admits that the Claimant had an outstanding loan of Kshs. 1,8883,766/=.
13. In the Respondent’s letter to the Claimant dated 4/8/2020, the Respondent avers that they informed the Claimant that they were ready to release the Claimant’s vehicles since they had not expelled the Claimant.
14. The Respondent denies the averment of Paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim that they held the Claimant’s five vehicles for the loan.
15. In their Respondent’s Witness Statement dated 30/4/2021, Mr. Alfred Githae the Vice Chairman of the Respondent admitted that the Claimant was their member and had five motor vehicles under the Respondent’s NTSA portal but later rebranded three of the vehicles to another company against the Respondent’s by-laws.
16. He averred that the vehicles daily returns were to be used to pay the Claimant’s loan.
17. He stated that the Claimant defaulted on his loan since 2018 and that at the time he was notifying the Respondent of his intention to withdraw from the Sacco, he was already defaulting on his loan.
18. He avers that the Claimant is trying to defraud the Sacco by trying to withdraw his vehicles when he has an outstanding loan.
19. He states that the Respondent is ready to release the Claimant’s vehicles upon clearing the Sacco’s loan.
20. The Respondent further states that they have been willing to sit down with the Claimant to resolve this issue but they claim the Claimant has not been forthright. He avers that the Claimant’s Loan is only guaranteed by his motor vehicles and therefore would result to loan default.
21. He further avers that the Claimant’s savings with the Sacco are not enough to offset the loan balance.
22. The Respondent’s case came up for hearing on 23/4/2025 where the Respondent failed to appear. The Tribunal directed that the Respondent’s case was closed and that the Counter Claim was dismissed.
Analysis.
23. This Tribunal observes that the Amended Statement of Claim dated 25/8/2021 prays for the following:i.An order to compel the defendant to release the four vehicles to the Claimant.ii.An order to the Respondent to offset the Claimant’s loan with his savings.iii.An order for the Respondent to refund Kshs. 375,000/= being calculated loss of income for the 5 vehicles for 15 working days.iv.Costs and interest of the suit.
24. We note that both parties are in agreement that the Claimant had 5 vehicles with the Respondent.
25. It is also not in dispute that the Claimant had an outstanding loan with the Respondent, hence his request to have his loan offset with his savings.
26. As regards release of the Claimant’s vehicles which were under the Respondent’s portal, we find that there is overwhelming evidence that the Respondent released some of the vehicles to the Claimant vile letter dated 4/8/2020.
27. This position is also supported by letters of 25/8/2020 and 18/8/2020 regarding the release of the vehicle.
28. In a letter undated from the Claimant’s lawyer, the particulars of the released vehicles was as follows;KBL 024HKBJ 774UKAQ 305Q.
29. From the Amended Statement of Claim dated 25/8/2021, the Claimant is praying for release of four vehicles.
30. Three of the four vehicles are indicated as released as shown in the letter from the Claimant’s advocate which is undated.
31. This leaves one motor vehicle KAR 637F not documented as released and which this Tribunal is satisfied that it may be in custody of the Respondent.
32. On the Claimant’s prayer to offset his loan with the savings, we note that the Claimant has a loan contract with the Respondent. The Claimant is praying for this Tribunal to order a restructuring of his loan, which basically means interfering with a contract between parties.
33. As regards the Claimant’s prayer for refund of Kshs. 375,000/= being alleged loss of business for the 5 vehicles for 15 days, the Claimant has not filed enough evidence to prove his claim.
34. This Tribunal is therefore reluctant to award the claim amount due to insufficient evidence on how the Kshs. 375,000/= was computed.
35. It is on record that the Claimant admitted during the hearing of the claim on 24/3/2025 that he had not filed the calculations on the Kshs. 375,000/= claim.
36. In conclusion, we find that the Claim partially succeeds and enter judgement in favor of Claimant against the Respondent for the following:1. The Respondent to release motor vehicle registration no. KAR 637F to the Claimant within 30 days from the date thereof.2. The Respondent to pay for the storage charges.3. The Respondents to bear the costs of the case.
Counter claim.
37. The Counter Claim was instituted by the Respondent vide Respondent’s response to the Statement of Claim and Counter Claim dated 12/11/2020.
38. The Respondent alleges that the Claimant was not servicing his loan since 2018 and is in arrears of Kshs. 1,883,766/= which continues to accrue interest and penalties.
39. The Respondent is therefore praying for the repayment of the Claimant’s defaulted loan and Kshs. 111,200/= owing to the welfare kitty and costs of suit and interest.
40. This Counter Claim was dismissed by this Tribunal for want of prosecution during the hearing of the case.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025. HON. J. MWATSAMA - DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 10. 7.2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE - MEMBER SIGNED 10. 7.2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA - MEMBER SIGNED 10. 7.2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI - MEMBER SIGNED 10. 7.2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW - MEMBER SIGNED 10. 7.2025HON. P. AOL - MEMBER SIGNED 10. 7.2025Tribunal Clerk KokiNkomejimana advocate for the claimant.Kiarie Joshua advocate for Respondent – No appearance.Nkomejimana advocate – Matter proceeded in absence of Respondent .Tribunal order30 days stay of execution granted.Respondent granted leave to appeal.HON. J. MWATSAMA - DEPUTY CHAIRPERSONSIGNED 10. 7.2025
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.