[2025] KECPT 194 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that documentary evidence, including the payment guarantee and loan application forms, established that the Claimant was indeed a guarantor for the Respondent's loans with Safaricom Sacco. Upon the Respondent's default, the Sacco lawfully deducted Ksh.391,744 from the Claimant. The Respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECPT 194 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Maxwell Otumba; Respondent: Meshack Owiti
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E996/929 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the claimant
- Judges
- BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Guarantee Liability, Loan Default, Sacco Disputes, Recovery of Debt
- 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
Maxwell Otumba
Applicant
Meshack Owiti
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant guaranteed the Respondent's loan with Safaricom Sacco.
- 2 Whether the Respondent defaulted on the loan, resulting in deduction from the Claimant as guarantor.
- 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund from the Respondent for the deducted amount.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that documentary evidence, including the payment guarantee and loan application forms, established that the Claimant was indeed a guarantor for the Respondent's loans with Safaricom Sacco. Upon the Respondent's default, the Sacco lawfully deducted Ksh.391,744 from the Claimant. The Respondent's admission of the Claimant's guarantor status and the absence of evidence to the contrary confirmed the Claimant's claim. The Tribunal held that, as a guarantor who had paid the defaulted amount, the Claimant was entitled to reimbursement from the Respondent. The claim was thus proven on a balance of probabilities.
Court Disposition
judgment for the claimant
Orders
- Respondent to refund Claimant Ksh.391,744 with interest at Tribunal rates from the date of filing claim.
- Respondent to pay costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Otumba v Owiti (Tribunal Case E996/929 of 2022) [2025] KECPT 194 (KLR) (Civ) (27 February 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 194 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Civil
Tribunal Case E996/929 of 2022
BM Kimemia, Chair, Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
February 27, 2025
Between
Maxwell Otumba
Claimant
and
Meshack Owiti
Respondent
Judgment
1. The matter for determination is contained in the Statement of Claim dated 18/11/2022 accompanied by the Claimant’s witness statement, documents and written submissions.
2. In the statement of claim the Claimant seeks a refund of Ksh.391,744/= savings from the Respondent, cost of the suit and interest. This position is reaffirmed in the Claimant’s witness statement dated 8. 11. 2022.
3. The Claimant’s matter came up for hearing on 16/4/2024 wherein the Claimant adopted his Statement of Claim as his evidence in Chief.
4. He stated that he guaranteed the Respondent a loan which he defaulted occasioning Safaricom Sacco to deduct the defaulted amount to the tune of Ksh.391,744/=.
5. He averred that the Respondent owed him the money that was deducted by the Sacco to repay his defaulted loan.
6. In his written submissions the Claimant avers that there is a breach of contract since the loaners who are the Respondents refused to repay their loans.
7. He avers that the guarantors have a secondary obligation in this matter and that the principal loaners should have repaid this loans.
8. The Respondent filled a Statement of Defence dated 9/1/2023 where he admits that both the Claimant and the Respondent were members of Safaricom Sacco but denies that the Claimant guaranteed him any loan.
9. The Respondent’s case heard on 8. 7.2024 wherein the Respondent witness Mr. Moses Oduor appeared for Case No. E928 of 2022. He admitted having taken a loan from Safaricom Sacco and the Claimant was his guarantor.
10. He avers that on receipt of a demand notice he was willing to discuss the default with the Claimant. He averred that he had guaranteed the Claimant loans. He admitted not sharing his loan Statements in Court. He averred that the Sacco should have exhausted all avenues to recover this money.
11. In the Respondent submissions dated 21. 11. 2024 the Respondent avers that he did not borrow from the Claimant thus owes him no money.
12. The Respondent argue that the Claimant had not exhausted available avenues to stop loan deduction before filing this case hence terms this case premature.
Analysis 13. The issue for this Tribunal to establish is whether the Claimant guaranteed the Respondent any loan with Safaricom Sacco. Evidenced was produced to support proof that indeed the Claimant guaranteed the Respondent loan. Payment guarantee dated 4. 11. 2019 is enough evidence of this guarantee-ship.
14. Loan application form dated 4. 11. 2019 for the Respondent in case No.929 of 2022 for Ksh.2. 250,000/= and guaranteed by the Claimant among other guarantor has been filed as evidence.
15. Similarly, loan application dated 6. 6.2019 for Respondent in case No.928 for a consideration of Ksh.8,500. 000/= is filed as evidence. In both the filed loan applications, the Claimant is a guarantor.
16. During the hearing of the case the Respondent admitted that they were both members of the Sacco. The Respondent denied owing the Claimant any money
17. The Respondent cannot deny that the Claimant was their guarantor for the loans they had taken with the Sacco.
Conclusion 18. We have considered the evidences of both parties and are of the opinion that the Claimant has proved that he indeed guaranteed the Respondent loan which the latter defaulted occasioning the Sacco to deduct the guarantor the defaulted amounts.
19. In this regard we find that the Claimant has proven the Claim on a balance of probabilities. We therefore enter judgement in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent and order as follows:a. Respondent to refund Claimant Ksh.391,744/= and interest at Tribunal rates from the date of filling claim.b. Plus, Cost of the suit.
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBITHIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2025. HON. B. KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 27. 2.2025Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Philip Gichuki Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 27. 2.2025Hon. Paul Aol Member Signed 27. 2.2025Tribunal Clerk JonahChimei advocate for ClaimantBibiu holding brief for Onyango for RespondentBibiu advocate for Respondent- I pray for 30 days stay of executionChimei advocate – No objection.Order – 30 days stay of execution granted.Hon. B. Kimemia Chairperson Signed 27. 2.2025