[2023] KECPT 1070 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 1070 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Claimant paid Kshs. 1,600,000 to the Respondent for the purpose of purchasing a plot and construction of a house, as evidenced by the documents produced. The Respondent did not contest the payment nor provide any evidence or explanation for the funds received. The Tribunal held that since...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 1070 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Naman Ogalo Were; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-operative Savings and Credit Society
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 544/ E045 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant.
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, PO Aol, M Chesikaw
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Housing Cooperative Disputes, Refund of Purchase Price, Off Plan Property, Failure of Consideration
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Breach of Contract Housing Cooperative Disputes Refund of Purchase Price Off Plan Property Failure of Consideration

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naman Ogalo Were

Claimant

Urithi Housing Co-operative Savings and Credit Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Claim / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant paid Kshs. 1,600,000 to the Respondent.
  2. 2 What was the purpose for the Kshs. 1,600,000 paid by the Claimant to the Respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund of Kshs. 1,600,000 plus costs and interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimant paid Kshs. 1,600,000 to the Respondent for the purpose of purchasing a plot and construction of a house, as evidenced by the documents produced. The Respondent did not contest the payment nor provide any evidence or explanation for the funds received. The Tribunal held that since there was no consideration provided by the Respondent—no house was delivered or completed—the Claimant was entitled to a refund of the full amount paid. The Respondent's defence amounted to mere denials and was unsupported by evidence. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs. 1,600,000 plus costs and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant.

Orders

  • The Respondent shall refund Kshs. 1,600,000 to the Claimant.
  • The Respondent shall pay costs and interest to the Claimant.