Okioga v Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd (Tribunal Case E1173 of 2023) [2026] KECOPT 280 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment)

Okioga v Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd (Tribunal Case E1173 of 2023) [2026] KECOPT 280 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 280 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E1173 of 2023 J Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 30, 2026 Between Bonface Monene Okioga Claimant and Metropolitan National Sacco Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant instituted this Claim dated 14th December 2023 against the Respondent seeking refund of his shares together with dividends allegedly due and owing following his resignation from the Respondent Sacco.The Claimant seeks the following orders:a.An order directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant Kshs. 339,200.00 being refund of shares; and dividends for (3) years;b.Interest on prayer (a) from date of filing suit;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 he was a member of the Respondent Sacco and had accumulated shares amounting to Kshs. 339,200.00.He further averred that by a resignation letter dated 2nd August 2023; he notified the Respondent of his intention to withdraw from membership and requested refund of his shares.The Claimant contended that despite demand and notice of intention to institute legal proceedings, the Respondent failed and/or neglected to refund the said shares, necessitating the filing of this claim. 3.In support of his case, the Claimant produceda.A resignation letter dated 2nd August 2023,b.A demand letter dated 8th November 2023,c.A response letter from the Respondent dated 15th November 2023 andd.A pay slip reflecting shares amounting to Kshs. 339,200.00. The Respondent's Case 4.The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 18th June 2024, denying that the Claimant was a member of the Sacco, denying the amount claimed and denying liability altogether.The Respondent further contended that the Claimant had failed to disclose to the Tribunal a resolution allegedly passed at an Annual General Meeting suspending refunds to members in order to allow the Sacco attain a sound financial position and accommodate its financial obligations. Issues For Determination 5.The issues for determination are:a.Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to refund of shares amounting to Kshs. 339,200;b.Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to dividends for three years;c.What orders should issue as to interest and costs. Analysis And Determination 6.The Tribunal has considered the pleadings, documents and submissions on record. In the case of Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated:“The burden of proof is on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side."The Tribunal must therefore determine whether the material placed before it establishes the Claimant's entitlement to the reliefs sought.The Respondent denied the Claimant's membership and entitlement to the shares claimed. However, the record contains the Claimant's resignation letter dated 2nd August 2023 addressed to the Respondent, a response letter dated 15th November 2023 from the Respondent and a pay slip reflecting shares amounting to Kshs. 339,200. 7.The Tribunal further notes that during the proceedings, the Respondent sought production of the Claimant's pay slip and the Claimant subsequently complied. Despite having raised the issue, the Respondent did not place before the Tribunal any evidence challenging the authenticity or contents of the pay slip.The Tribunal has also considered the Respondent's response letter dated 15th November 2023. While the Respondent denied membership and liability in its Defence, the said correspondence addressed the Claimant's request for refund of shares and explained that payment had been affected by the Sacco's financial challenges.In the Tribunal's view, the contents of the letter are inconsistent with the Respondent's blanket denial of the Claimant's claim.The Respondent further relied on an alleged Annual General Meeting resolution suspending refunds to members. However, in CMC Aviation Ltd v Cruisair Ltd [No. 1] [1978] KLR 103, the Court observed:“Pleadings contain the averments of the parties concerned until they are proved or disproved. They are not evidence and no decision could be based on them." 8.Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant has proved his entitlement to refund of shares in the sum of Kshs. 339,200.With regard to the claim for dividends for three years, the Tribunal notes that the Claimant neither quantified the amount sought nor provided a basis upon which the Tribunal could ascertain the amount payable. No evidence was produced to demonstrate declaration of dividends, the applicable rate, Audited Accounts, AGM resolutions or any computation supporting the claim.The Tribunal finds that the claim for dividends was not proved and is incapable of determination in its present form. 9.In the result, judgment is entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent as follows:a.The Respondent shall pay the Claimant Kshs. 339,200.00 being refund of shares;b.The amount awarded in (a) above shall attract interest at court rates from date of filing suit till full.c.The claim for dividends for three years is hereby fails.d.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 – MutaiOndieki Advocate for the ClaimantMetropolitan Sacco – No appearance.