https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/282

Olkiado v Metropolitan National Sacco Ltd (Tribunal Case E434 of 2022) [2026] KECOPT 282 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 282 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E434 of 2022 J Mwatsama, Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 30, 2026 Between Grace Steyian Olkiado Claimant and Metropolitan National Sacco Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant instituted this claim dated 27th May 2022 against the Respondent seeking judgment in the sum of Kshs. 226,245.36, together with interest at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full, costs of the suit and any other relief that the Tribunal may deem fit and just to grant.The claim arises from the Claimant's membership in the Respondent Society and the Respondent's alleged failure to refund the Claimant's accumulated savings and benefits following termination of her membership. The Claimant's Case 2.The Claimant's case is that she was a member of the Respondent Society from 18th August, 2013 until 30th October, 2020 when she voluntarily terminated her membership.She contends that upon cessation of membership, she became entitled to a refund of her accumulated savings comprising monthly deposits, interest earned, dividends and share capital amounting to Kshs. 226,245.36.Despite demand and service of a notice of intention to sue, the Respondent failed, refused and/or neglected to refund the said amount, thereby necessitating the institution of these proceedings.The Claimant relied on the documents filed in support of her claim, including:a.An advocate's demand letter dated 4th May 2021 andb.A TSC pay slip reflecting the savings amount claimed. The Respondent's Case 3.The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 5th October 2022 denying the Claimant's claim in its entirety.The Respondent denied having received the Claimant's withdrawal notice.Without prejudice to the denial, the Respondent averred that pursuant to resolutions allegedly passed during its 2019 Annual General Meeting, refunds to withdrawing members were to be processed on a first-come-first-served basis.The Respondent further averred that due to liquidity challenges facing the Society, members resolved during the 2022 Annual General Meeting that refunds would be scheduled after two years from the date of withdrawal. Issues for Determination 4.Having considered the pleadings, documents on record and submissions filed by Claimant dated 15th June 2026 and not by the Respondent at the date of writing this judgement, the Tribunal is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the Claimant terminated her membership with the Respondent Society?b.Whether the Claimant proved entitlement to the sum of Kshs. 226,245.36?c.Whether the Respondent established its defense?d.Who should bear the costs of the suit? Analysis and Determination 5.The Claimant pleaded that she terminated her membership with the Respondent in the year 2020 and subsequently demanded payment of the monies due to her.The advocate's letter dated 4th May 2021 made reference to Notices of Withdrawal allegedly delivered to the Respondent on 30th October 2020.Although the Respondent denied receipt of the Withdrawal Notice, it proceeded to set out the process applicable to members seeking refunds upon withdrawal from the Society. 6.The Respondent did not place before the Tribunal any evidence to rebut the Claimant's assertion that she had withdrawn from membership.On a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant terminated her membership and demanded payment of the sums due to her.The Claimant sought Kshs. 226,245.36 being her accumulated savings and benefits due upon withdrawal from the Respondent Society.The documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal reflected the amount claimed as the Claimant's savings with the Respondent. 7.The Tribunal notes that the Respondent, despite being the custodian of the Claimant's financial records, failed to place before the Tribunal any Statements of Account, refund rosters or AGM resolutions in support of its defense. In the absence of such evidence, the Claimant's evidence remained substantially uncontroverted. Guided by the principles enunciated in the case of Palace Investments Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that the burden of proof in civil cases rests upon the party asserting a fact and must be discharged on a balance of probabilities.The Court adopted Lord Denning J.'s dictum in Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 that proof on a balance of probabilities means that the court must find the claimant's version "more probable than not"; where the probabilities are equal, the party bearing the burden of proof fails. 8.The Tribunal also notes that while the Respondent filed a Statement of Defense, it failed to substantiate the averments contained therein through evidence.In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she is entitled to the sum of Kshs. 226,245.36.The Respondent relied on alleged AGM resolutions passed in 2019 and 2022 regarding the scheduling of refunds to members. However, the Respondent failed to produce the said resolutions before the Tribunal or whether they still apply.Similarly, no refund roster was produced to demonstrate that the Claimant's refund had been scheduled in accordance with the alleged resolutions.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." 9.The Tribunal therefore finds that the Respondent failed to prove its defense.Further, liquidity challenges, without more, cannot extinguish a withdrawing member's entitlement to monies lawfully due and owing. Upshot 10.Having carefully considered the material placed before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant has proved her case against the Respondent on a balance of probabilities.Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent fora.A sum of Kshs. 226,245.36.b.The said sum shall attract interest at court rates from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.c.The Claimant shall have the costs of this suit. JUDGEMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA CHAIRPERSONHON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBERHON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBERHON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBErHON. P. AOL MEMBERCourt Assistant – MutaiKoech Advocate for the ClaimantMetropolitan Sacco – No appearance