https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/285

Njogu v Ukristo na Ufansi DT Sacco Ltd (Tribunal Case E064 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 285 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 285 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E064 of 2025 J Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 30, 2026 Between Titus Wanaina Njogu Claimant and Ukristo na Ufansi DT Sacco Ltd Respondent Judgment 1.The matter for determination is via a Plaint dated 15th December, 2025 where the Claimant claims to be a member of Respondent’s Sacco Ukristo na Ufanisi DT Sacco Ltd since 2012 and in the year 2016 the Claimant got a loan facility from Respondent for Kshs.1,200,000.00/= for the purchase of a motor vehicle.It is the Claimant evidence that he purchased motor vehicle registration no. KBH 544J and the log book surrendered to the Respondent for release upon full payment.Claimant avers he made all payments and his last payment was for Kshs.400,000.00/= which was offset from his savings account. 2.The Claimant avers the Respondent released the log book to him and the motor vehicle was transferred and registered in his name.However, in the year 2022 when the Claimant approached another financial institution for a loan, he was informed he was ineligible for the loan because he had been listed with Credit Reference Bureau (CRB) as a defaulter.Claimant later learnt the Respondent Society caused this listing. Due to the Respondent’s actions the Claimant continues to suffer loss and cannot get any credit as the Respondent have failed to remove his name from CRB.The Claimant’s claim is for:a.That the Defendant be compelled to clear the name of the Plaintiff from the listing with Credit Reference Bureau (CRB) forthwith and or;b.That this Honourable Tribunal do order the Credit Reference Bureau to remove the name of the Plaintiff from the listing.c.That the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff General Damages for the unlawful listing with the CRBd.Costs of this suit and interest thereon.Claimant filed List of Documents which included:a.Copies Of Savings and Loan Bookb.KBH544J Motor Vehicle Search 3.The Respondent filed Statement of Defence dated 16th March 2026. They admit the Claimant was their member no. 015146 and that in the year 2016 the Claimant got a loan facility of Kshs. 1,200,000.00/=.The Respondent aver the Claimant was to repay Kshs.41,550.00/= monthly which the Claimant failed and was not consistent. The Respondent disputes the Claimant records and state it received Kshs.10,000.00/= and not Kshs.60,000.00/= as alleged and in the month of March 2019 the Claimant made a deposit of Kshs.8,200.00/= and not Kshs.93,215.00/= as alleged by Claimant. 4.The Respondent state they maintained three sets of records;a.Passbook,b.Ledger card in Respondent’s possessionc.System records.The Respondent therefore deny the loan was fully settled and Claimant remains indebted to the Respondent.Any CRB listing of Claimant is therefore lawful and justified. Respondent therefore denies any wrongdoing and pray for the suit to be dismissed with costs.Respondent filed List of Documents dated 16th March 2026 to be used as evidence and the documents there are Claimant’s Statement of Account from December 2016 to March 2019 and Claimant’s Statement of Account from 2021 to date. 5.The Claimant filed Reply to the Statement of Defence dated 16th March 2026. The Claimant reiterates averments of the Plaint. The Claimant avers the passbook was filled by Respondent’s agents who are custodian of ledger and system records. The entries in the passbook were signed by the Respondent’s agents as per the entries. Claimant also reiterates the log book would not have been released to him if indeed he had a loan balance and if indeed, he owed them, the Respondent ought to have filed a Counterclaim and prayed for the Defence to be dismissed. 6.Parties filed Written Submissions with Claimant filing Written Submissions dated 26/5/2026 while the Respondent filed Written Submissions dated 13/5/2026.Having considered the pleadings, documents filed and submissions by parties it is clear the Claimant was a member of Respondent’s Society and a loan facility of Kshs.1,200,000.00/= was advance to him.The issue for determination is; Issue one: a. Whether the Claimant Completed Payment of the Loan Facility?The Claimant’s evidence to support his claim for payment of the loan facility is in his filed passbook. The Respondent does not dispute the passbook is used as one of its records. According to the passbook, the Claimant completed making payment of the loan facility he obtained. 7.However, the Respondent dispute the payment made by the Claimant in the passbook. The Respondent in particular disputes the payments made in March 2019.The Respondent aver to have received Kshs.8,200.00/= and not Kshs.93,215 as alleged by the Claimant.Paragraph 7 of the Defence also refers to a payment of Kshs.10,000.00/= instead of Kshs.60,000.00/= though it is not indicated which timeframe it was done.How the entry amounts from the passbook became less in the ledger card held by Respondent and the system is what is not answered by either party.The Respondent do not deny their agents signed the passbook held by Claimant. What they dispute is the amount which appear on their records. 8.While it is not in dispute the Respondent had three records in respect to the Claimant loan. They acknowledge the passbook held by the member, the ledger card maintained by the Respondent and the system record.The question that needs to be answered is where the discrepancy occurred. Is it the passbook, the ledger card or the system?This is not clear neither is it answered by the Claimant or Respondent. All the Claimant knows is that the passbook was his guiding document and for the payment done the logbook was released and registered to the purchaser who bought the motor vehicle from him.The Respondent on the other hand we note are silent on the issue of transfer of a motor vehicle which they were holding the logbook as collateral. They do not state how the release of the logbook was done before full repayment of the loan. 9.We have interrogated the Respondent’s Documents filed in support of the Defence raised that the Claimant owed them. We note the Respondent has two Statement of Account. First, December 2016 to March 2019 and thereafter there is no record till Claimant’s Statement of Account March 2021 to date which balance is brought forward.The question we ask ourselves is why no record of any penalties between March 2019 and April 2021? The silence in the Claimant’s Statement of Account as produced by Respondent is not explained. There are no demand letters to Claimant for payment of the loan balance if at all or communication.When and how the CRB listing was done is also not confirmed or explained by Respondent’s Society only that Claimant was in default. 10.Looking into the documentary evidence before the Tribunal and facts as alluded by the parties, we are inclined to agree with the Claimant that he indeed completed his loan repayment and does not owe the Respondent Society.We are convinced because the Respondent have not given contrary evidence or disputed the use of the passbook. Their contention is the figures in the passbooks. They do not say the figures were altered if at all which makes the Claimant’s records a clear copy.From our understanding the records are updated first on the passbook which is held by the member, which information is placed to the ledger book/register which is with the Respondent Society and finally the computer generated one. If indeed there is any discrepancy the same would be from the 2nd point of entry that is the ledger book.We are not convinced the Claimant’s passbook had an erroneous entry which made him clear the loan and the loan security released to Claimant. As such we find the Claimant had completed his loan repayment. 11.The Claimant in their prayers also sought for general damages other than the fact that the Claimant could not get a loan with another loan facility no injury/damage to the Claimant has been shown or proved. The Claimant has not shown/demonstrated how his being listed in CRB has caused him loss or change to the extent that he needs CRB. The Claimant must demonstrate actual injury suffered. There is no evidence of damage, impairment of economic activity, though we acknowledge embarrassment and inconvenience. We rely in the case of Consolata Anyango Ouma -vs- South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd [2015] eKLR where Justice Majanja (as he then was):“The next question is whether the appellant was entitled to damages as a result of the breach. As a general principle, the purpose of damages for breach of contract is, subject to mitigation of loss, the claimant is to be put as far as possible in the same position he would have been if the breach complained of had not occurred. This is principle is encapsulated in the Latin phrase restitution in integrum (see Kenya Industrial Estates Ltd v Lee Enterprises Ltd NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2004 [2009] eKLR, Kenya Breweries Ltd v Natex Distributors Ltd Milimani HCCC No. 704 of 2000 [2004] eKLR). The measure of damages is in accordance with the rule established in the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9. Exch. 341 that the measure of damages is such as may be fairly and reasonably be considered arising naturally from the breach itself or such as may be reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made and a probable result of such breach (see Standard Chartered Bank Limited v Intercom Services Ltd & Others NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003 [2004] eKLR). Such damages are not damages at large or general damages but are in the nature of special damages and they must be pleaded and proved (see Coast Bus Service Ltd v Sisco Murunga Ndanyi & 2 others, NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 192 of 92 (UR) and Charles C. Sande v Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd, NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 154 of 1992 (UR))".As such the prayer on general damages fails. 12.Having completed his loan repayment, the Respondent had no claim or authority to list the Claimant with CRB. We therefore enter judgment in favour of Claimant against Respondent and declare as follows:a.The Respondent is ordered to clear the Claimant from listing with CRB 21 days from today.b.Prayer for general damages fails.c.Cost of the suit granted to Claimant. JUDGMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNEDHON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNEDHON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNEDHON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNEDCourt Assistant – MutaiTitus Wanaina – Claimant presentWairimu Advocate for the Respondent