[2025] KECPT 264 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 264 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the respondent/applicant did not file a defence or provide any credible new evidence to warrant a review of the judgment. The document presented as a loan statement was not an official statement but an internal handwritten note, and did not demonstrate payment of the outstanding loan. The respondent's claim of having paid a substantial amount was not supported by evidence, and the deductions referenced were actually made from the claimants' payslips to offset the respondent's defaulted loan. The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the application for review or stay of execution, as the respondent failed to demonstrate any triable issue or sufficient cause. The...

Citation
[2025] KECPT 264 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charity Wanjiru Muriithi; Applicant: Jane Wairimu Maina; Applicant: Peter Kamanda; Respondent: Anthony Mucheru Kugwa
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case 95.E197 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Loan Recovery, Admission of Claim, Execution of Decree
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Review of Judgment Stay of Execution Loan Recovery Admission of Claim Execution of Decree

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charity Wanjiru Muriithi

Applicant

Jane Wairimu Maina

Applicant

Peter Kamanda

Applicant

Anthony Mucheru Kugwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is new evidence to warrant the review of the judgment dated 6.8.2024.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable grounds to stay the execution of the decree.
  3. 3 Who should bear the cost of this suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent/applicant did not file a defence or provide any credible new evidence to warrant a review of the judgment. The document presented as a loan statement was not an official statement but an internal handwritten note, and did not demonstrate payment of the outstanding loan. The respondent's claim of having paid a substantial amount was not supported by evidence, and the deductions referenced were actually made from the claimants' payslips to offset the respondent's defaulted loan. The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the application for review or stay of execution, as the respondent failed to demonstrate any triable issue or sufficient cause. The...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Prayer for review of the judgment dated 6th August 2024 is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Prayer for stay of execution of the decree dated 7th August 2024 is dismissed for lack of merit.