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

Mweni & 4 others v Kerubo (Tribunal Case 183/ E283 of 2024) [2025] KECPT 353 (KLR) (26 June 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KECPT 353 (KLR) Co-operative Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Co-operative Tribunal
Case number
353
Citation
[2025] KECPT 353 (KLR)
Decided
26 June 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePreliminary ObjectionPostureRespondent filed a Preliminary Objection against the Statement of ClaimCoramHON.
Holding

The Co-operative Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

Facts

The Claimants are members of Sheria Sacco Society and acted as guarantors for a loan of Kshs. 2,130,000. The Respondent applied for a Development Loan and the Claimants' share deposits were debited to satisfy the loan.

Issues

  1. Whether the Co-operative Tribunal lacks the requisite jurisdiction under section 76 of the Co-operative Society’s Act to hear and determine the matter.
  2. Whether the claim constitutes a dispute within the context of section 76 of the Co-operative society’s act.
  3. Whether a dispute on the recovery of money deducted from guarantors by a Co-Operative Society or Sacco to satisfy a defaulted Loan which won grantors to a member is a preserve of commercial courts or the Co-operative Tribunal.

Reasoning

The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Co-operative Society’s Act, as the dispute arises from the business of a Co-operative Society. The Tribunal is the court of jurisdiction for disputes related to Co-operative societies and Saccos.

Outcome

The Preliminary Objection is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Co-operative Society’s Act No. 12 of 1997
Cases cited (1)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessels 'Lillians' v Caltex Oil [K] Ltd.
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