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

Ndungu v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited (Tribunal Case 112/ E003 of 2021) [2023] KECPT 1065 (KLR) (30 November 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KECPT 1065 (KLR) Co-operative Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Co-operative Tribunal
Case number
1065
Citation
[2023] KECPT 1065 (KLR)
Decided
30 November 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a decision of the Cooperative TribunalCoramHON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA, HON. J. MWATSAMA, HON. BEATRICE SAWE, HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA, HON. PHILIP GICHUKI, HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW, HON. PAUL AOL
Holding

The Court finds the Claimant has proven their case and enters judgment in favor of the Claimant for Kshs. 330,000/= plus costs and interest.

Facts

The Claimant, Nduati Ndungu, is a member of the Respondent, Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited. He claims that he paid Kshs. 330,000/= for a piece of land in Kilimambogo but the Respondent has not transferred the land as agreed. The Claimant also claims a refund and interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a refund?
  2. Who bears the costs?

Reasoning

The Court held that there was no valid contract between the parties due to the lack of a written, executed, and attested Sale Agreement. The Claimant provided evidence of the payment made, while the Respondent failed to produce any evidence supporting their claim.

Outcome

Judgment in favor of the Claimant for Kshs. 330,000/= plus costs and interest.

Orders

  • 30 days stay of execution granted to Respondent.

Remedies

  • Refund of Kshs. 330,000/=
  • Interest on the refund
  • Costs of the suit

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Law of Contract Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Peter Mbiri Michuki v Samuel Mugo Michuki (2014) eKLR
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