[2024] KECPT 1178 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 1178 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the claimant had proved her case against the 1st Respondent by showing that Kshs. 143,057 was deducted from her salary under an Asset Finance Agreement, but no asset was allocated to her. The claimant also proved special damages of Kshs. 1,000 by producing an official search and receipt. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 1178 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Emily Makena Mungania; Respondent: Equator Nursing Home Saving and Credit Coop. Society Limited; Respondent: Meridian Equator Hospital Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 783/E911 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part against the 1st Respondent; claim against the 2nd Respondent struck out.
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Asset Finance Agreements, Refund of Contributions, Special Damages, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Asset Finance Agreements Refund of Contributions Special Damages Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emily Makena Mungania

Applicant

Equator Nursing Home Saving and Credit Coop. Society Limited

Respondent

Meridian Equator Hospital Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of Kshs. 143,057 deducted under the Asset Finance Agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to special damages of Kshs. 1,000.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the 2nd Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the claimant had proved her case against the 1st Respondent by showing that Kshs. 143,057 was deducted from her salary under an Asset Finance Agreement, but no asset was allocated to her. The claimant also proved special damages of Kshs. 1,000 by producing an official search and receipt. The Tribunal confirmed the summary judgment previously entered for Kshs. 143,057 and awarded the additional Kshs. 1,000 as special damages. However, the claim against the 2nd Respondent was struck out in its entirety due to lack of proof of the Tribunal's jurisdiction over it. The total award of Kshs. 144,057 was entered in favour of the claimant against the 1st Respondent, with...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part against the 1st Respondent; claim against the 2nd Respondent struck out.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the claimant against the 1st Respondent for Kshs. 143,057 as refund.
  • Special damages of Kshs. 1,000 awarded to the claimant.