Download PDF

Kenya Judgment

Cooperative Tribunal

Peter v Cosmos Sacco Limited [2025] KECPT 366 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a bona fide member of the Respondent Sacco and had properly withdrawn her membership. The Claimant provided sufficient documentary evidence, including pay slips and a withdrawal letter, to prove her entitlement to the claimed sum. The Respondent's defence, based on financial hardship and ongoing forensic audit, was found to be unsubstantiated and not a lawful ground to withhold the Claimant's deposits. The Tribunal held that statutory obligations to refund member deposits upon withdrawal are not suspended by internal financial mismanagement or pending audits. Judgment was therefore entered in favour of the Claimant for the sum claimed, with costs and interest.

Court disposition

judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 693,789.00.
  • The Respondent shall pay the Claimant interest on the sum at court rates until payment in full.
  • The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

Elizabeth Peter

Claimant

Cosmos Sacco Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Principal Sum Awarded: KES 693,789

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Tribunal Claim / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Claimant argued that she was a member of the Respondent Sacco, duly withdrew her membership, and is entitled to a refund of her deposits totaling Kshs. 693,789. She provided a withdrawal letter and pay slips as evidence of her membership and deposits. She sought the principal sum, costs, and interest.
Respondent
The Respondent denied liability, claiming that funds were misappropriated by a previous board, resulting in financial difficulties and 140 pending cases. They argued that refunding the Claimant would require using other members' deposits, which is not permissible, and asked for the claim to be dismissed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490), Section 18

    A Sacco member who withdraws is entitled to a refund of their deposits, subject to proof of membership and amount deposited.

  2. 02

    Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490); Tribunal precedent

    Mere financial hardship or ongoing audits do not absolve a Sacco from its statutory obligation to refund a withdrawing member's deposits.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a bona fide member of the Respondent Sacco and had properly withdrawn her membership. The Claimant provided sufficient documentary evidence, including pay slips and a withdrawal letter, to prove her entitlement to the claimed sum. The Respondent's defence, based on financial hardship and ongoing forensic audit, was found to be unsubstantiated and not a lawful ground to withhold the Claimant's deposits. The Tribunal held that statutory obligations to refund member deposits upon withdrawal are not suspended by internal financial mismanagement or pending audits. Judgment was therefore entered in favour of the Claimant for the sum claimed, with costs and interest.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal notes that Saccos must maintain proper records and ensure transparency in member transactions to avoid disputes of this nature.
  • Financial mismanagement by previous boards cannot be used as a shield against legitimate member claims.

Court disposition

judgment for the claimant

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 693,789.00.
  • The Respondent shall pay the Claimant interest on the sum at court rates until payment in full.
  • The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.

Source and reliance status

Cooperative Tribunal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Cooperative Tribunal

Judgment

[2025] KECPT 366 (KLR)

Peter v Cosmos Sacco Limited (Tribunal Case 195/E263 of 2023) [2025] KECPT 366 (KLR) (10 July 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KECPT 366 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Tribunal Case 195/E263 of 2023

Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members

July 10, 2025

Between

Elizabeth Peter

Claimant

and

Cosmos Sacco Limited

Respondent

Judgment

1. Matter for determination is Statement of Claim dated 31/3/2023. The Claimant states she was a member of the Respondent Sacco on 10/2/2022. She wrote to the Respondent to express her wish to withdraw membership from the Respondent and sought refund of her shares. The Claimant claims as at the time of withdrawing, she had savings of Kshs. 693, 789. 00/=.Her claim is for:a.The said sum of Kshs. 693,789. 00/=b.Costs of the suit and interest until payment in full.c.Any other relief so deemed appropriate by this Honourable Tribunal.The Claimant filed a List of Documents dated 31/3/2023 which included;a.Withdrawal letter.b.Pay slip

2. The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 13/12/2023 on 17/9/2024 denying the Claimant’s averments. The Respondent in paragraph 5 of the Defence states that money belonging to the members including the Claimants was misappropriated by a board who have since quit and the Sacco is struggling financially. It also stated it has 140 pending cases and cannot use other members’ deposits to refund the Claimant. They also ask for the Claimant’s claim to be dismissed.

3. Matter being one for refunds was directed for parties to file Written Submissions. The Claimant filed their Written Submissions As at the date of writing this Judgment claimant had not filed their written submissions. Respondent filed Written Submissions dated 12th March, 2025 filed on 25th June, 2025. We have looked into the Claim and Defence. The Respondent’s Statement of Defence is full of mere denials and in paragraph 6, they confirm the Claimant was their member who knows there is forensic audit ongoing. Their excuse that refunding the Claimant would mean other member’s funds would be used is neither here nor there and has no basis.We are therefore inclined to agree with the Claimant about the refund.However, considering the Claimant’s documents, we are not convinced of the amount the Claimant had despite being convinced she was indeed a member. The Statement of Accounts filed by the Claimant is not in its proper format. We direct the Claimant to file and serve their documenti.e. pay slip or any other proof of deposits to the Respondents 10 days from 26/6/2025.

Judgement 10/7/2025. SignedHon. MjeniDeputy Chairperson20/6/2025Addendum 31/1/2022, 28/2/2022, 31/3/2022 upon directions given on 26/6/2025. We note the Claimant filed pay slips for the periodLooking into the said documents, we are convinced the Claimant has deposits with the Respondent.31/1/2022 pay slips shows an amount of Kshs. 4,400/= deducted and her balance was Kshs. 771,611/=Subsequent pay slips of 28/2/2022 and 31/3/2022 do not show any deductions from the Respondent for the sole reason the Claimant withdrew her membership vide letter dated 10/2/2022. The Defence or Respondent’s Written Submissions does not touch on the amount and now the Tribunal is convinced of the deductions by Claimant’s employer to the Respondent.We enter judgement in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 693,789. 00/= as prayed plus cost and interest.

JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025. Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 10. 7.2025Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 10. 7.2025Hon. Fridah Lotuiya Member Signed 10. 7.2025Hon. Philip Gichuki Member Signed 10. 7.2025Hon. Michael Chesikaw Member Signed 10. 7.2025Hon. P. Aol Member Signed 10. 7.2025Tribunal Clerk KokiElizabeth Peter – PresentMetropolitan Sacco- No appearanceHon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 10. 7.2025

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.