https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/281

Ochieng v Ken-Knit Sacco Society Ltd (Tribunal Case E035 of 2022) [2026] KECOPT 281 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 281 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E035 of 2022 J Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 30, 2026 Between James Ochieng Claimant and Ken-Knit Sacco Society Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant instituted this claim dated 31st October 2022, against the Respondent seeking refund of his shares and Christmas savings following his retirement from employment and subsequent withdrawal from the Respondent Sacco.The Claimant seeks the following orders:a.Payment of Kshs. 82,295.00 being the Claimant's shares and Christmas savings;b.Interest on the amount awarded;c.Costs of the suit; andd.Any other relief that this Tribunal may deem fit and just to grant. The Claimant's Case 2.The Claimant averred that upon receiving a retirement notice covering the period from 1st December 2021 to 28th February 2022, he requested the Respondent to refund his shares and Christmas savings.The Claimant’s List of Documents include: -a.A demand letter dated 1st December 2021; the Claimant demanded payment of Kshs. 95,575.00 being shares together with Kshs. 9,000.00 being Christmas savings.b.A further demand letter dated 4th February 2022 reiterated the request for payment.c.A Share Statement dated 17th February 2022 reflecting shares amounting to Kshs. 73,295.00 and Christmas savings amounting to Kshs. 6,500.00.The Claimant subsequently filed written submissions in support of his claim. The Respondent's Case 3.The Respondent filed a Memorandum of Response dated 6th December 2022 contending that the figures claimed by the Claimant were inaccurate.The Respondent also produced correspondence dated 8th February 2022 requesting the Claimant to avail his pay slips, statement and visit the Respondent's offices for verification of the figures claimed.By a further letter dated 11th March 2022, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it was experiencing financial constraints and requested him to bear with the Sacco for a period of eight (8) months as it sought to stabilize its financial position.The Respondent did not file witness statements, documentary evidence or written submissions in support of its Defence. Issues for Determination 4.The issues falling for determination are:a.Whether the Claimant has proved entitlement to the refund sought;b.Whether the Claimant is entitled to interest and costs. Analysis and Determination 5.The Tribunal has considered the pleadings, documents and written submissions on record.The Tribunal is guided by the decision in Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests upon the party who would fail if no evidence at all were tendered. The Tribunal must therefore determine whether the Claimant has established his claim on the material placed before it.The Claimant produced a share statement dated 17th February 2022 showing shares amounting to Kshs. 73,295.00 and Christmas savings amounting to Kshs. 6,500.00. The Tribunal has examined the said statement and finds it to be the primary documentary evidence of the Claimant's entitlement. 6.The correspondence exchanged between the parties is equally significant. While the Respondent initially disputed the figures claimed and requested verification, its subsequent letter dated 11th March 2022 did not deny the Claimant's entitlement. Instead, the Respondent acknowledged that it was facing financial constraints and requested additional time to process the refund. In the Tribunal's view, this conduct is consistent with an acknowledgment that monies were due to the Claimant, the only impediment being the Respondent's financial position. 7.Although the Respondent pleaded that the figures claimed were inaccurate, it did not produce any statement of account, witness statement or other documentary evidence demonstrating the correct amount payable to the Claimant. The Tribunal is guided by the decision in CMC Aviation Ltd v Cruisair Ltd [No. 1] [1978] KLR 103, where the Court observed that pleadings are not evidence and that allegations contained therein must be supported by evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the Respondent's assertions remain unsubstantiated. 8.The Tribunal further notes that while the demand letters referred to Christmas savings of Kshs. 9,000.00, the share statement produced before the Tribunal reflects Christmas savings of Kshs. 6,500.00. The Claimant did not produce any documentary evidence explaining or supporting the higher figure. Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant has proved entitlement to Kshs. 73,295.00 being shares and Kshs. 6,500.00 being Christmas savings, making a total of Kshs. 79,795.00. Orders 9.Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent as follows:a.The Respondent shall pay the Claimant Kshs. 79,795.00 being refund of shares and Christmas savings; plus, interest.b.The Claimant shall have the costs of the suit. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 30/6/2026Court Assistant – MutaiB.I Otieno Advocate for the ClaimantMukabane & Kagunza Advocate for the Respondent – No appearanceHON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 30/6/2026