[2025] KECPT 200 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had adequately prosecuted her case by providing sufficient documentary evidence of her membership, savings, and notice of withdrawal. The Respondent's denial of liability was not supported by evidence, as the Claimant's member statement originated from the Respondent and was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 200 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sarah Karuana Nyaga; Respondent: Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd.
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 639/E807 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Refund Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the claimant
- Judges
- BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Sacco Refunds, Member Withdrawal, By Laws Compliance
- 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
Sarah Karuana Nyaga
Applicant
Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refund Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of her savings from the Respondent Sacco.
- 2 Whether the Respondent's reliance on AGM resolutions and financial constraints is a valid defence to the refund claim.
- 3 Whether the Claimant complied with the Sacco's by-laws regarding withdrawal and refund requests.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had adequately prosecuted her case by providing sufficient documentary evidence of her membership, savings, and notice of withdrawal. The Respondent's denial of liability was not supported by evidence, as the Claimant's member statement originated from the Respondent and was not disputed. The Tribunal held that while the Respondent cited AGM resolutions and financial constraints, these did not override the Claimant's right to a refund of her savings, as there was no evidence that the Claimant failed to comply with the by-laws. The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was entitled to a refund of Kshs. 481,383.57 plus costs and interest at Tribunal rates.
Court Disposition
judgment for the claimant
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 481,383.57.
- The Respondent shall pay the Claimant interest at Tribunal rates on the awarded sum.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
Nyaga v Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd. (Tribunal Case 639/E807 of 2023) [2025] KECPT 200 (KLR) (27 March 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 200 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 639/E807 of 2023
BM Kimemia, Chair, Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
March 27, 2025
Between
Sarah Karuana Nyaga
Claimant
and
Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd.
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Claimant has moved this Tribunal through a Statement of Claim dated 6/10/2023 seeking a refund of Kshs. 181,481,383. 57 from the Respondent plus costs and interests.
2. The Claimant has filed the following documents to support his Claim;a.Her witness statement dated 6/10/23b.Her witness statement for the period 31/1/14 to 31/12/21c.Letter of withdrawal from Respondent dated 23/2/22 and several letters from the Respondent, among others.
3. The Respondent returned to the Claimant dated 29/8/23 acknowledge it as the Claimant was owed money to the Respondent.
4. The Respondent had filled a Defence dated 21/12/23 wherein the Respondent avers that the Claimants Notice to withdraw was not in conform with the Saccos By-Laws.
5. The Respondent avers that they have been failing financial constraints and it is overwhelmed by the numerous applicants seeking to withdraw their savings.
6. Being a refund issue the tribunal on 17/9/24 directed that the case will be canvassed through written submissions.
7. We are invited to determine whether the Claimant had adequately prosecuted her case to warrant a refund on Claimant.
8. The Claimant has filled a witness statement showing that she had savings with the Respondent.
9. She has also filed a Notice of withdrawal plus her advocates demand to the Respondent.
10. She has also filled her submissions as ordered by the court dated 1/10/24.
11. In their submissions dated 1/10/24 the Claimant states the Claimant no loan with the Respondent advocate that they Respondents refusal to refund her shares and a breach of the Saccos By-laws.
12. The Claimant invites the Tribunal to determine if the Claimant is entitled to her Claim.
13. The Respondent has filled defence dated 21/12/22 wherein the Respondent refers to the AGM resolutions where refunds were suspended due to financial constrains in the Sacco.
14. The Respondent avers that the Claimant demand is made in bad faith as contrary to the AGM resolutions.
15. In their written submissions dated 20/11/24 the Respondent reiterate that they are financially constrained and overwhelmed by the numerous demands for refunds.
16. They aver that they are bound by the AGM resolutions suspending refunds.
17. They aver that the Claimant has not established sufficiently that she is owed any savings by the Respondent.The Respondent avers that shares are non-refundable.
18. The Respondent submits that the Respondent has been facing extreme financial challenges and that the numerous applications for refunds are overwhelming.
19. They pray that should the Tribunal find that there is money owed to the Claimant and which is denied, they can order the Manager to refund between kshs. 2000/= and Kshs. 5000/= plus interests.
Conclusion 20. We find that the Claimant has adequately prosecuted the case.
21. She has filed adequate documents in support of her case.
22. She has established that she was a member of the Respondent and had savings as shown in her witness statement with the Respondent.
23. She has also filed a Notice of withdrawal letter to the Respondent dated and stamped by the Sacco on 23/2/22.
24. The Respondent has throughout denied owing the Claimant any money but states that showed this Tribunal find that she is owed any money, they can only refund between kshs. 2000 to kshs. 5000 per months.
25. We find this position by the Respondent as a mere denial since the Claimant member statement filed in this Tribunal emanates from the Respondent and they have not denied this statement.
26. In view of the forgoing, we find merit in the Claimants case and accordingly enter Judgment in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 481,383. 57 plus costs and interest at Tribunal rates.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 27. 03. 2025HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 27. 03. 2025HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 27. 03. 2025HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 27. 03. 2025HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 27. 03. 2025HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 27. 03. 2025HON. PAUL AOL MEMBER SIGNED 27. 03. 2025Tribunal Clerk MutaiGithaiga Advocate holding brief for Ms. Mbuchi advocate for the Claimant.Gitonga Muriuki advocate for the Respondent/Applicant- None AppearanceHON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 27. 03. 2025