[2024] KECPT 1505 (KLR)

[2024] KECPT 1505 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the claimant had produced uncontroverted evidence, including the respondent's own acknowledgment of the deposit amount and the withdrawal notice. The respondent was duly served but failed to respond or contest the claim. The tribunal held that the burden of proof remained with the claimant,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECPT 1505 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Paul Omondi; Respondent: Ufundi Savings & Credit Cooperative Society Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 735/E923 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment After Formal Proof
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; refund, costs, and interest awarded; damages for breach of contract denied.
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Cooperative Societies, Member Withdrawal, Deposit Refund, Contractual Obligations
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Cooperative Societies Member Withdrawal Deposit Refund Contractual Obligations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Omondi

Applicant

Ufundi Savings & Credit Cooperative Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment After Formal Proof

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of his deposits upon withdrawal from the respondent cooperative society.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant proved his case on a balance of probabilities in the absence of a defence by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs and interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant had produced uncontroverted evidence, including the respondent's own acknowledgment of the deposit amount and the withdrawal notice. The respondent was duly served but failed to respond or contest the claim. The tribunal held that the burden of proof remained with the claimant, who discharged it by providing credible documentary evidence. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was entitled to a refund of his deposits, costs, and interest, but not to damages for breach of contract, as this was not proved.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; refund, costs, and interest awarded; damages for breach of contract denied.

Orders

  • The respondent shall immediately refund Ksh. 345,411 to the claimant.
  • The claimant is awarded costs of the claim.