SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Osiemo v Sauti Cooperatives Savings (Tribunal Case 65 of 2018) [2025] KECOPT 420 (KLR) (Civ) (7 August 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECOPT 420 (KLR) Copyright Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Copyright Tribunal
Case number
420
Citation
[2025] KECOPT 420 (KLR)
Decided
7 August 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureClaimant v RespondentCoramHON. J. MWATSAMA, HON. BEATRICE SAWE, HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA, HON. PHILIP GICHUKI, HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW, HON. P. AOL
Holding

The claim is merited, and judgment is entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent. The Respondent is ordered to refund the Claimant the purchase price of her two plots 885 and 886 at the present market value. Costs of the suit are awarded to the Claimant.

Facts

Scolastica Kwamboka Osiemo is a member of Sauti Cooperatives Savings. She claims to have paid Kshs. 200,000/= for two plots (885 and 886) in Donholm estate, Nairobi, in 2021. She alleges that the plots were irregularly allocated to third parties in 2013, causing her anguish and suffering. She seeks a refund of the purchase price at current market value.

Issues

  1. Refund of purchase price of the two plots at present market value
  2. Damages for unlawful and irregular allocation of plots
  3. Costs of the suit
  4. Any other relief deemed just

Reasoning

The Tribunal finds the claim merited due to the Respondent's admission of out-of-court settlement efforts and the offer of Kshs. 1,100,000/=, which confirms the Claimant's entitlement to a refund. The claim for damages is dismissed as not adequately prosecuted.

Outcome

Judgment in favor of the Claimant

Orders

  • An order directed at the Respondent to refund the Claimant the purchase price of her two plots 885 and 886 at the present market value
  • Costs of suit to the Claimant

Remedies

  • Refund of purchase price of the two plots at present market value
  • Costs of suit awarded to the Claimant
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case