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

Ernest Adenyo Ajiki v Taraji Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 590 (KLR)

[2021] KECPT 590 (KLR) Co-operative Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Co-operative Tribunal
Case number
590
Citation
[2021] KECPT 590 (KLR)
Decided
4 March 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
Typeshare refund disputePostureAppeal from a previous judgmentCoramHON. B. KIMEMIA, HON. J. MWATSAMA, B. AKUSALA
Holding

The Tribunal finds that the Claimant has established his case in a balance of probability and enters judgment against the Respondent for Kshs. 330,000/= being outstanding deposits and Kshs. 29,250/= being deductions towards risk fund.

Facts

The Claimant, Ernest Adenyo Ajiki, is seeking a refund of Kshs.451,850/= from the Respondent, Taraji Sacco Society Limited, for unpaid share contributions and other monies. The Respondent claims the Claimant's cumulative outstanding deposit is Kshs.330,600/=. The most recent statement shows the outstanding deposits as Kshs.330,600/=. The Claimant disputes the Respondent's claim and argues for a refund of Kshs.4000/= as share capital and Kshs.5000/= as contributions relating to the plaza, and the risk fund.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent owes the Claimant money and it so to what extent
  2. Who should meet the costs of the claim?

Reasoning

The Tribunal considers the most recent statement of account and finds the Claimant's cumulative outstanding deposits to be Kshs.330,600/=. The Tribunal agrees with the Claimant on the refund of Kshs.4000/= as share capital and Kshs.5000/= as contributions relating to the plaza, and the risk fund.

Outcome

The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant Kshs. 359,850/=, including costs and interest at court rates.

Orders

  • Kshs. 330,000/= being outstanding deposits
  • Kshs. 29,250/= being deductions towards risk fund

Remedies

  • Refund of Kshs. 359,850/= including costs and interest at court rates
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case