[2020] KECPT 71 (KLR)

[2020] KECPT 71 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the claimant had properly communicated her intention to withdraw from the Sacco and, after the expiry of the statutory notice period, was entitled to a refund of her deposits. However, the tribunal also found that the respondent had followed due process in surcharging the claimant for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECPT 71 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Sarah Busolo; Respondent: Butali Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 674 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for both parties; claimant entitled to refund of deposits, respondent entitled to counterclaim, with net balance payable by claimant.
Legal Topics
Cooperative Societies Disputes, Refund of Deposits, Counterclaim Liability, Surcharge of Officials
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Cooperative Societies Disputes Refund of Deposits Counterclaim Liability Surcharge of Officials

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Busolo

Claimant

Butali Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a refund of her deposits amounting to Kshs.152,000/=.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is liable to pay the respondent the counterclaimed amount of Kshs.258,615/= as surcharged by the society.
  3. 3 Whether the process of surcharging the claimant was fair and in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant had properly communicated her intention to withdraw from the Sacco and, after the expiry of the statutory notice period, was entitled to a refund of her deposits. However, the tribunal also found that the respondent had followed due process in surcharging the claimant for unaccounted funds, as evidenced by the inspection report, audit report, and minutes of the general meeting. The claimant was served with a show cause letter but failed to respond or appear. All other surcharged officials paid their dues except the claimant. Consequently, the tribunal held that the claimant was liable for the counterclaimed amount of Kshs.258,615/=. The tribunal...

Court Disposition

Judgment for both parties; claimant entitled to refund of deposits, respondent entitled to counterclaim, with net balance payable by claimant.

Orders

  • The claimant is entitled to a refund of Kshs.152,000/=.
  • The respondent is entitled to recover Kshs.258,615/= from the claimant.