Case ID:176321

Margaret Adhiambo Ochieng v Taraji Sacco Society Limited [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Tribunal Case 444 of 2019

Parties:

Margaret Adhiambo Ochieng v Taraji Sacco Society Limited

Date Delivered:

04 Mar 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Cooperative Tribunal

Case Action:

Judgment

Judge(s):

Hon. B. Kimemia, Hon. J. Mwatsama, B. Akusala & Hon. B. Kimemia

Citation:

Margaret Adhiambo Ochieng v Taraji Sacco Society Limited [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Tribunal

County:

Nairobi

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 444 OF 2019

MARGARET ADHIAMBO OCHIENG ...................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

TARAJI SACCO SOCIETY LIMITED..............................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Vide the Statement claim dated

24.1.2019

, the Claimant has moved this Tribunal seeking for Judgment to be entered against the Respondent as follows:

a. Kshs.292,150/= being unpaid share contribution together with interest at 21% per annum;

b. Costs.

c. Interest

The Claimant has founded these reliefs on the fact that the Respondent has declined and/or refused to refund her deposits amounting to

Kshs.292,150/=.

That being a member of the Respondent, she made monthly contributions towards deposit until November 2015 when she applied to withdraw from it. That she had made several demands for refund of the deposit to no avail.

When she appeared before us for hearing on 7.10.2020, the Claimant reiterated the averments above.

Respondent’s Case

The Respondent has opposed the claim vide the undated statement of Defence filed on

15.8.2019

. It also send its Chairman

Stephen Oluoch

to testify in court on

7.10.2020,

The gist of the Respondent’s case is that the Claimant is entitled to a refund of

Kshs.164, 620/-

. That she had been refunded a total sum of

Kshs.49,000/=.

That the payslip produced by the Claimant should not be relied upon to depict her monthly contributions as the same contain gross deductions/ remittance from her employer (TSC). That the gross remittance include:

a. Deposits

b. Risk fund

c. Plaza share; and

d. Share capital

That the

share capital

of

Kshs.4000/-

is non-refundable. That the

plaza

share of

Kshs.5000/=

is also non-refundable. That the risk fund of

Kshs.26,250/=

is also non-refundable.

That at the time the Claimant withdrew membership the Respondent was in financial crisis resulting from mismanagement. That to date, it has not recovered thus cannot refund the deposits in full.

Issues for determination

We have framed the following issues for determination:

a. Whether the Claimant has made out a proper basis to warrant an order for refund of deposits.

b. Whether the Respondent owes the Claimant and if so, to what extent.

c. Who should meet the costs of the claim?

Refund of deposits/shares

It is not in dispute that the Claimant was a member of the Respondent and that she made deposits. What is in dispute is the amount of the said contribution and the outstanding balance. The claimant contends that his outstanding balance is

Kshs.292,150/=.

The Respondent is, however, of a contrary view. It avers that the claimant owed a sum of

Kshs.164,620/=.

That in the past, the Claimant has been paid a sum of

Kshs.49,000/=.

That the following monies are not refundable.

a. Share capital - Kshs.4000/=

b. Plaza share contributions Kshs. 5000/=

c. Risk funds Kshs. 26,250/=

During her testimony in court, the claimant admitted having received a sum of

Kshs.31,980/=

from the Respondent. That she had also been given a sum of

Kshs.24,000/=

as interest. That this leaves a balance of

Kshs.292,190/=.

The Respondent disputes this and contend that the Claimant had been refunded a sum of

Kshs.59,000/=.

For starters, we agree with the Respondent that the Share Capital and funds applied towards construction of the Plaza are non-refundable. These form part of the core capital of the Respondent which can only be transferred upon withdrawal of membership.

As for the risk fund, we do not find any basis with which the Respondent is withholding the money. These are monies deducted from the Claimant to take care of eventualities of death in the course of her membership. She is now no longer a member and is still alive. She is thus entitled to be refunded the said monies.

As regards deposits, we have perused the Claimant’s

Statement of Account

dated

1.8.2019

. It shows that her outstanding deposits as at

5.7.2018

was

Kshs.164,620.

We have perused the Claimant’s bundle of documents and have not come across one which supports her claim for

Kshs.292,150/=.

We thus find that the only document showing the actual monies due and owing to the Claimant is the above statement of accounts.

Conclusion

The upshot of the foregoing is that we find that the Claimant has established her case on a balance of probability and thus enter judgment in her favour and against the Respondent as follows:

a. Deposits Kshs.164,620; and

b. Risk fund Kshs. 26,250

Total

Kshs.190,870/=

The Claimant is also awarded interest at court rates and costs as well.

Judgment signed, dated and delivered

virtually

this

4

th

day of

March,

2021

.

Hon. B. Kimemia Chairperson Signed 4.3.2021

Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 4.3.2021

B. Akusala Member Signed 4.3.2021

No appearance for parties

Hon. B. Kimemia Chairperson Signed 4.3.2021