https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/273

Watulo & another v Menu Farmers Co-op Society & 9 others (Tribunal Case E644 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 273 (KLR) (15 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 273 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case E644 of 2024 J Mwatsama, Ag Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 15, 2026 Between Dydmus Matingi Watulo 1st Claimant Andrew Wafula Wachiye 2nd Claimant and Menu Farmers Co-op Society 1st Respondent Bramwel Maruti Matete 2nd Respondent Bramwel Makwato 3rd Respondent Nahashon M Mwalo 4th Respondent Patrick S Opicho 5th Respondent Davis Nganga 6th Respondent Diphas Ndalila Mumenya 7th Respondent Patrick Siangi Opicho 8th Respondent Joel Makokha Mamai 9th Respondent Morgan Mang’eni 10th Respondent Judgment 1.The matter for determination is an Amended Statement of Claim dated 12th August 2024. In the Statement of Claim, the Claimants aver that they are members of the 1st Respondent. That the Society intended to hold elections on 14th August 2024, and indeed held the same in contrary to what the by-laws and the Co-operative Societies Act provide. That the election of Management Committee members is to be preceded by an AGM where vacancies are to be declared, and also audited books presented and considered by the members. That no such AGM was held, and that no election has been held for the last 11 years. Their claim is for a declaration that the advert notice of election issued on the 16th July 2024 is illegal. The Claimants specifically pray fora.A declaration that the advert notice of election issued on the 16th day of July 2024 is illegal and the elections scheduled for 14th day of August 2024 be cancelled.b.A general meeting which the CMC has denied members to address contentious issues before election be ordered by the court at per by law N.O 28(c) ii.c.Costs of this suit.d.Interest on (a) and (b) at court rates.e.Any other or further relief. 2.The Respondents filed a Response to the Amended Statement of Claim dated 15th October 2024. In the Response, they state that the meeting held on 14th August 2024 was properly and lawfully convened in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Society’s by-laws. That the Societies AGM was held on 16th February 2024, which was attended by the Claimants and in which the books of accounts were presented and also the elections discussed. That in the 11 preceding years, the management committee members have been re-elected. 3.The matter came up for hearing on 8th December 2025. Claimant’s Case 4.During the hearing, one of the Claimants, Andrew Wafula testified. He informed this Tribunal that he is a farmer and that Menu Society is where they take their coffee. He adopted his witness statement dated 6th December 2024, and produced his documents which were marked as Claimant’s Exhibits 1-4. On cross-examination, he informed the Tribunal that the AGM held on 16th February 2024 was done after elections. That elections were held on 14th August 2024, and that the advert for the elections was done by someone who is not a secretary. He also responded that accounts have been audited and that they have been submitted to the Commissioner of Cooperatives. He also agreed that according to a letter from the county department of cooperative development dated 23rd July 2024, all Cooperative Societies in Bungoma were to have elections. But he faulted the elections of not being procedural because the notice of elections was issued by someone who did not have capacity. Respondent’s Case 5.RW1, one Bramwel Matete testified for the Respondent. He informed this Tribunal that he is the Chairman of Menu FCS since 2014, and that the last elections we held on 14th August 2024. He adopted the Replying Affidavit dated 15th October 2024 in response to Notice of Motion as his evidence in chief. On cross examination, he responded that the elections were called by the County Co-operative Officer, and that the notice of elections was signed by the CEO, one Andrew Mamai on behalf of the Co-operative Officer, and on whose instructions, he was signing the notice. He also responded that the last time an AGM was held was 16th February 2024, and that the last time they filed audited accounts was in 2024/2025 financial year. RW2 one Nahashon also testified for the Respondent 6.Only the Claimant filed their submissions. 7.The Claimant’s in their submissions reiterated their Statement of Claim and the Claimant’s testimony and invited this Tribunal to note that the elections conducted contravene the provisions of rule 28 and 29of the SACCO’s by laws and also section 25 and 27 of the Co-operative Societies Act. That there was no general meeting held to deliberate on the elections of the management committee, and also that the advert dated 16th July 2024 communicating the elections is unlawful and illegal. Analysis 8.This Tribunal has taken note of the pleadings filed by the parties, the testimony adduced during the hearing, and the Claimant’s submissions. 9.The Claimant’s claim is for a declaration that the advert of election issued on the 16th July 2024 was illegal, and thus elections held 14th August 2024 be cancelled and fresh elections be held. The Claimant’s claim is that the advert is illegal because it was signed by the CEO. During the hearing, the Claimant’s witness informed this Tribunal that the CEO had no capacity to issue notice of elections and that it was the Cooperative Officer who had capacity to issue the notice of elections. The Respondent’s witness testified that the CEO was instructed by the sub-county Cooperative Officer to issue the advert. This Tribunal has looked at the Notice dated 16th July 2024 and it was indeed signed by the CEO. Both parties agree that it ought not to have been issued by the CEO but the Respondent avers that this signing by the CEO was authorized by the Co-operative officer. The Respondent has not produced anything to back up this averment. 10.It is agreed that a flawed or improperly issued notice of election severely damages the credibility and legality of a Cooperative Society’s elections. We will now proceed to look at this notice, to determine whether it impacted on the credibility of the elections. In the Notice, the CEO is declaring vacancies and calling for applications, and that the applications should be sent to him. This raises a fear of conflict of interest. The CEO is an employee of the Cooperative Society and is at the direction of the management committee. However, since the Claimants have not raised this issue, or any other credibility threat that might have arisen because of the elections, this Tribunal is inclined to agree with the Claimants that the notice was not proper in form but is also opined that the form is not one to warrant the cancellation of elections, when no injury has been shown to have been occasioned. It would have been different if the defect was one of substance such as the date of elections, or the notice period being too short. It would also have been different if the Claimants showed they suffered an injury because of that defect. The Committee members so elected are already past halfway their term in office, according to the testimony of the Respondent’s witness that they serve a 3-year term. This prayer, therefore fails. 11.The second substantive prayer is a prayer that this Tribunal orders the society to hold a general meeting. This Tribunal feels that the Cooperative Societies Act at Section 27(6) has provided enough guidelines to members of a co-operative society to call for a meeting when the need arises, and that they do not need to invoke the powers of this Tribunal when they already have the powers to do so, unless there is a real need. The Claimants have not shown the need for this court to order a general meeting and why it is impossible for them to exercise the power conferred by Section 27(6) which provides;27(6) A special general meeting of a co-operative society may be convened—(b)on receipt of a written notice for such meeting signed by such number of the members of the co-operative society as may be prescribed in the rules and stating the objects and reasons for calling the meeting.(7)If the Committee fails to convene a meeting within fifteen days of receiving the notice under subsection (6) (b), the members demanding the meeting may themselves convene the meeting by giving notice to the other members of the co-operative society, stating the objects and reasons for the meeting and the fact that the Committee has failed to convene the meetingThis prayer, therefore, fails. 12.In the upshot of the above, we find that this Claim lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs. JUDGMENT DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA AG.CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026Court Assistant - MutaiWere advocate for the ClaimantWasilwa advocate for the RespondentsMs. Nekesa advocate holding brief for Wasilwa advocate for the Respondents