[2023] KECPT 66 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the claimant had produced uncontroverted evidence of payment of Ksh. 1,000,000.00 to the respondent, as evidenced by receipt No. 85913. The respondent failed to allocate the maisonette as agreed and did not provide any evidence to refute the claimant's assertions or to show that the money was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KECPT 66 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Raymond Karanja Njaga; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-Op Soc Ltd
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 2 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in favour of the claimant.
- Judges
- M Mwatsama, Gitonga Kamiti, M. Mbeneka
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Refund of Deposit, Housing Cooperative Disputes
- 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
Raymond Karanja Njaga
Applicant
Urithi Housing Co-Op Soc Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of Ksh. 1,000,000.00 paid to the respondent for a maisonette that was not allocated.
- 2 Whether the respondent breached its contractual obligations to the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the claimant had produced uncontroverted evidence of payment of Ksh. 1,000,000.00 to the respondent, as evidenced by receipt No. 85913. The respondent failed to allocate the maisonette as agreed and did not provide any evidence to refute the claimant's assertions or to show that the money was not deposited. The Tribunal held that the respondent's mere denials, unsupported by evidence, could not defeat the claimant's claim. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the respondent breached its contractual obligations and that the claimant was entitled to a refund of the amount paid, together with interest and costs.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in favour of the claimant.
Orders
- The respondent shall refund the claimant Ksh. 1,000,000.00.
- The respondent shall pay interest on the sum at commercial rates from the date of filing until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Njaga v Urithi Housing Co-op Soc Ltd (Tribunal Case 2 of 2020) [2023] KECPT 66 (KLR) (Civ) (23 February 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KECPT 66 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Civil
Tribunal Case 2 of 2020
M Mwatsama, Vice Chair, Gitonga Kamiti & M. Mbeneka, Members
February 23, 2023
Between
Raymond Karanja Njaga
Claimant
and
Urithi Housing Co-Op Soc Ltd
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Matter for determination is brought vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 20/12/2019 filed on 9/1/20. Claimant avers he was member of respondent and respondent offered a 2 bedroom maisonette No. 87 to be erected on land reference No. 11407/848, 849, 850 and 851 reference to as Gem Juja Phase III for Ksh. 2,995,000. 00. The claimant paid 1,000,000. 00 and was duly receipted for with receipt No. 85913. The respondent official could not identify the plot and thus claimant requested for his refund. On October 4, 2018 claimant forwarded respondent his bank deposit slip plus original receipt for the refund.Theclaimant’s prayer is for;-a.Kenya Shilings One Million (Ksh. 1,000,000. 00)b.Interest at the Commercial rates prevailing from time to time on (a) abovec.Costs of suit together with interest thereon at such rate and for such period of time as this honourable tribunal may deem fit to grant.d.Any other or such further relief that this honourable tribunal may deem fit to grant.
2. The respondent filed Statement of Defence dated 10/5/20 filed on 30/6/20 denying the claim. The respondent admit Claimant is their member and they agreed to sell Gem Juja Phase III but claimant has not deposited any cash.Matter came for hearing on 30/8/22 and C.W.1-Raymond Karanja who adopted his witness statement dated 20/12/19 filed on 9/1/20 as his evidence in chief and produced his list of Documents dated 20/12/19. The claimant stated respondent did not fulfil their obligation and it was only in 2017 he realized he had been conned.Respondent’s did not call any witnesses to give evidence.
3. Parties were to file written submissions andclaimant filed their written submissions dated 12/9/22 on 21/10/22. Issue for DeterminationIssue OneWhether the Claimant is entitled to get her refund?The claimant testified giving his evidence of payment which was uncontroverted upon the claimant producing his evidence receipt No. 85913 for Ksh. 1,000,000. 00. The respondent did not deny issuing the said receipt nor did not refute that monies were paid.Respondent did not adduce any evidence to the contrary to show money was not deposited into their account other than mere denials.
4. With the evidence by claimant and documents produced we are convinced that indeed the claimant deposited money to respondent’s account. The respondent’s have not kept their end of the deal and are merely refusing to refund the claimant’s cash.UPSHOTWe find in favour of claimant against respondent for Ksh. 1,000,000. 00 plus cost and interest of the suit.
JUDGMENT, READ AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 23RD FEBRUARY, 2023Hon. Mjeni Mwatsma D/Chairperson Signed 23. 2.2023Gitonga Kamiti Member Signed 23. 2.2023Maria Mbeneka Member Signed 23. 2.2023In the presenceKemboi Advocate for the ClaimantMwangi Advocate for the RespondentMwangi Advocate – we pray for 30 days stay of executionKemboi Advocate – we pray they be granted 21 days.TribunalRespondent granted 21 days stay of execution.SignedHon. Mjeni MwatsamaDeputy Chairperson23/2/23