[2025] KECPT 381 (KLR)

Muriithi v Harambee Sacco Society & another (Tribunal Case 165. E197 of 2023) [2025] KECPT 381 (KLR) (10 July 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 381 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Tribunal Case 165. E197 of 2023

Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members

July 10, 2025

Between

Lucy Muriithi

Claimant

and

Harambee Sacco Society

1st Respondent

Dominic Moses Muarathi

2nd Respondent

Judgment

1. The Claimant’s case is based on the Statement of Claim dated 2/3/2023 where the Claimant is among other prayers praying for judgement against the Respondent for a declaration that Kshs. 690,000/= loan and its subsequent interest illegal and unlawful.

2. In the Statement of Claim, the Claimant states she was a member of the 1st Respondent and that she guaranteed the 2nd Respondent an emergency loan of Kshs. 20,000/= in 2007.

3. She states that she came to be informed that she had guaranteed the 2nd Respondent Kshs. 690,000/= and not Kshs. 20,000/=.

4. She avers that she was informed that the loan had now grown to Kshs. 1,005,675/=. She states that she has tried to get the Loan Application for the Kshs. 690,000/= loan but the Sacco has refused.

5. The Claimant alleges that there must have been a collusion between 1st and 2nd Respondent to have approved the loan of Kshs. 690,000/= without their knowledge.

6. She alleges that the 1st Respondent waited for 9 years to notify her and recover the defaulted illegal loan.The Claimant has filed the following in support of her Claim:i.Claimant’s Witness Statement dated 2/3/2023. ii.Documentsiii.Hearing proceedings of 22/4/2025. iv.Claimant’s Written Submissions dated 5/5/2025.

7. In her Witness Statement, the Claimant states that the 1st Respondent did not make any efforts to recover the loan from the 2nd Respondent and instead went ahead to attach the guarantors.

8. During the hearing of the Claimant’s case, the Claimants restates that she only guaranteed the 2nd Respondent Kshs. 20,000/= and not the Kshs. 690,000/=.

9. In the Written Submissions, the Claimant requests the Tribunal to make determination on the following.i.Whether the Claimant guaranteed Kshs. 690,000/= advanced to the 2nd Respondent.ii.Whether 1st Respondent should be compelled to stop further deduction and refund the deducted amounts.iii.Whether the Claimant is entitled to general damages.iv.Whether the Claimant is entitled to cost of the Claim and interest.

10. She avers that the 1st Respondent has refused to provide her with the copy of the Kshs. 690,000/= loan agreement form.

11. She stated that the failure by the 1st Respondent to produce documents in support of the Kshs. 690,000/= loan renders the loan unenforceable against her.

12. On general damages, she avers that she suffered mental anguish resulting to medical alteration supported by Claimant’s documents.

13. She finally argues that she deserved costs of the claim and interest at Tribunal rates since cost follow the event.

Respondent’s Case. 14. The Defence case is instituted vide the 1st Respondent’s Statement of Defence dated 13/4/2023.

15. The 1st Respondent admits that the Claimant was its member and that she guaranteed the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent denies knowledge of the Claimant’s attempts to get a copy of the 2nd Respondent’s loan Application.

16. The 1st Respondent denies collusion with the 2nd Respondent as regards the Kshs. 690,000/= loan.The Defendant did not file any documents in support of their case.

17. The 2nd Respondent did not file any Defence or Memorandum of Appearance.

18. During the hearing of the Claimant’s case, the Defence did not participate thus the Tribunal declaring the Respondent’s case closed on 22/4/2025.

19. At the time of writing this judgement, the Respondent had not filed any Written Submissions.

Analysis. 20. Issues for this Tribunal’s determination are basically as prayed in the Statement of Claim;i.The Kshs. 690,000/= loan status.ii.Repayment of the same Kshs. 690,000/= by the Claimant.iii.General damages.iv.Cost of claim.v.Interest accruing.

21. As regards the Kshs. 690,000/= loan that the Claimant denies knowledge of, we find that the 1st and 2nd Respondent have failed to produce the loan agreement to prove that indeed the Claimant was a guarantor.

22. However, the Claimant in her document bundle 2/3/2023 document 1 - l, Claimants letter to the 1st Respondent dated 21/2/2020, the Claimant writes “… though I do not dispute having guaranteed Mr. Dominic Moses” This is an admission by the Claimant that she guaranteed the Respondent Kshs. 690,000/= loan despite the 1st Respondent not having provided the loan agreement form as requested by the Claimant.

23. In regard to the repayment of a loan defaulted by the principal loanee, in this case the 2nd Respondent, the Loan Agreement form is explicit in terms of the guarantor’s liability in the event of default.

24. The Claimant is therefore bound by the commitment made as a guarantor to the 2nd Respondent’s loan.

25. The Claimant’s claim on general damages of Kshs. 500,000/= is just an estimate. The Claimant has not filed a calculation of the said amount.

26. This Tribunal however acknowledges that the Claimant has had several medical reports evidenced in Document 12 – a to 12 – n of his documents from several health institutions.

27. However, this is not a proof that the matter in the Tribunal is the cause of her health issues.

Conclusion. 28. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is convinced that the Claimant guaranteed the 2nd Claimant the loan of Kshs. 690,000/= as admitted by the Claimant.

29. We are also in Agreement with the Respondent that the Claimant was bound by the conditions of a guarantor as outlined in the Loan Agreement Form signed between the Claimant and the Respondent.

30. While we sympathize with the Claimant’s situation, a claim on general damages must be proved. Filing of medical reports from various health institutions only prove that the Claimant attended and was treated in these health institutions.

31. The medical reports have not assisted the Claimant in justifying her claim on general damages.

32. In conclusion, we find that the Claimant’s case is not merited and therefore dismiss the Claim.We order that the Claimant meets the costs of the claim.

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 KokiMrs. Njuguna advocate for the Claimant.Moronge & Company advocate for 1st Respondent – No appearance.