Bob Morgan Sacco Society Ltd v Matore (Civil Appeal E1406 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 12792 (KLR) (Appeals) (18 September 2025) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 12792 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) APPEALS CIVIL APPEAL E1406 OF 2024 AC MRIMA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 BETWEEN BOB MORGAN SACCO SOCIETY LTD .............................................. APPELLANT AND SAPHANIA MATORE ......................................................................... RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of The Co-op Tribunal Case No. CTC No. 546 E673 of 2023 delivered on 28th November 2024) JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by Bob Morgan Sacco Society Ltd, the Appellant herein, against a judgment by the Co-operative Tribunal wherein the Appellant was decreed to pay the sum of Kshs. 92,000/= with interests to the Respondent herein, Saphania Matore, being accumulated savings at the time the Respondent was relieved of his duties as a security officer by the Appellant sometimes in April 2021. 2. Through a Memorandum of Appeal dated 3rd December 2024, the Appellant sought to review the impugned judgment by substituting the decreed sum of Kshs. 92,000/= with Kshs. 36,000/= on the following three grounds: 1. That the learned Chairlady grossly misdirected herself in law and in fact as she did by holding that the Appellant was liable to refund the Respondent shares in the sum of Ksh. 92,00/= when the Respondent failed to prove the claim. 2. That the learned Chairlady grossly misapprehended the evidence before her by failing to consider the Appellant’s evidence in the member account statement which clearly showed that the amount refundable was Ksh. 36,000/= https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/12792/eng@2025-09-18 1
page 1 of 3
3. That the learned Chairlady wrongly misapprehended the evidence before her and arrived at a wrong decision. 3. The appeal was opposed by the Respondent. There was also an application filed by the Respondent by way of a Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2025 which sought to strike out the Appellant’s Statement of Accounts from the Record of Appeal which was allegedly not part of the record before the Tribunal. The application was also opposed by the Appellant. By the directions of this Court, both the appeal and the application were heard together by way of written submissions where both parties duly complied and referred to several decisions in support of their rival positions, hence, this judgment. The gist of the submissions shall be ingrained in the later part of this decision. 4. Having comprehensively considered the parties’ cases, rival arguments, the written submissions and the decisions referred to thereto, two main issues emerge for determination. They are: i. Whether the application be allowed. ii. Whether the appeal is merited. 5. Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, Cap. 490 of the Laws of Kenya [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] accords this Court the jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the decisions from the Co-operative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. However, the decision of the High Court on any appeal is final. 6. Therefore, as the first and final appellate Court, this Court’s role is as established in Susan Munyi -vsKeshar Shiani [2013] eKLR, Abok James Odera t/a AJ Odera & Associates -vs- John Patrick Machira t/ a Machira & Co Advocates [2013] eKLR among many other decisions, as to re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusions. 7. With the foregoing principles, this Court shall now deal with the issues identified above. (a) Whether the Application be Allowed: 8. This Court has carefully considered this issue and finds that the application ought to fail. The reason is that the impugned Statement of Accounts appearing in the Record of Appeal is similar to the one filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal save that the statement in the Record of Appeal was instead certified. 9. As nothing significant turns on the contents of the statement, the application is for rejection. (b) Whether the Appeal is Merited: 10. This appeal is simply on the amount of refund payable to the Respondent by the Appellant. Whereas the Appellant has offered the sum of Kshs. 36,000/=, the Respondent fronts for the decreed sum of Kshs. 92,000/=. 11. The Appellant filed a Statement of Accounts before the Tribunal titled Member Statement from 31Dec-2019 to 9-Oct-2024 relating to the affairs of the Respondent with the Appellant. The statement was not opposed by the Respondent. As there is no doubt that the Respondent’s services were terminated on 23rd April 2021, then according to the statement, the Respondent had accumulated the sum of Kshs. 123,184/= as at that date. 12. In his Amended Statement of Claim, the Respondent admitted having secured a loan from the Appellant of Kshs. 30,000/= which he allowed the Appellant to set-off from his savings. The Respondent then expected the balance of around Kshs. 92,000/= to be paid to him. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/12792/eng@2025-09-18 2
page 2 of 3
13. On its part, the Appellant while relying on the statement posited that the sum payable was only Kshs. 36,495/=. The said sum of Kshs. 36,495/= is truly captured in the statement. The amount is arrived at from the figure of Kshs. 123,184/= less what was described as payments by the Respondent from his deposits in the sum of Kshs. 249/86; Kshs. 566/09; Kshs. 12,203/33; Kshs. 29,985/06; Kshs. 1,000/=; Kshs. 25,000/=; Kshs. 8,500/; and Kshs. 10,000/= respectively. 14. As stated above, the Respondent denied the said deductions and only admitted securing a loan of Kshs. 30,000/= from the Appellant. Therefore, since the Respondent had denied any knowledge of the said deductions from the mutually agreed sum of Kshs. 123,184/=, it was incumbent upon the Appellant to prove that indeed the Respondent was indebted to it and had approved of the said payments of Kshs. Kshs. 249/86; Kshs. 566/09; Kshs. 12,203/33; Kshs. 29,985/06; Kshs. 1,000/=; Kshs. 25,000/ =; Kshs. 8,500/; and Kshs. 10,000/=. As the Appellant failed to do so, then the said deductions were not proved and could not be set-off from the Respondent’s savings. It is for that reason that this Court finds no fault in the impugned judgment and the appeal is unmerited. 15. Having found as much, this Court hereby makes the following final orders: (a) The appeal and the Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2025 are both dismissed. (b) Parties shall bear their respective costs. It is so ordered. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025. A. C. MRIMA JUDGE Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of: Mr. Tonje, Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Mr. Nyachoti, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Michael/Amina – Court Assistants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/12792/eng@2025-09-18 3
page 3 of 3