A High Court ruling affirmed that the Commissioner for Cooperative Development holds broad authority to enforce tribunal orders removing unfit officers from SACCO leadership positions — and is not required to grant those officers a second hearing before doing so.
The ruling, delivered on March 9, 2020, by Justice W. Korir at the High Court’s Constitutional and Human Rights Division in Nairobi, dismissed a petition filed by a chairman of Afya Savings and Credit Society Limited (Afya SACCO) who challenged his removal from office as unlawful.
The Core Dispute
The petitioner, who served as both Committee Member and Chairman of Afya SACCO, received a letter on January 10, 2020, from the Commissioner for Cooperative Development declaring him to be illegally in office. The removal was grounded in a 2009 award by the Co-operative Tribunal — upheld by the High Court on appeal in the same year — which had declared him unfit to hold office under Section 28(4)(m) of the Co-operative Societies Act.
The petitioner argued that his removal violated his constitutional right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution, claiming he was denied a hearing before being ousted.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Korir rejected the argument entirely. The court found that the Commissioner had made no independent decision — he was simply acting as an enforcer of the Tribunal’s existing order. Granting the petitioner another hearing at the enforcement stage, the court held, would effectively allow the Commissioner to sit as an appellate body over the Tribunal’s already-final decision.
The court’s reasoning was unambiguous: the right to be heard had already been exercised during the original tribunal proceedings. Requiring regulators to reopen that process each time they enforce a judgment would render tribunal decisions meaningless.
The Commissioner’s broader mandate under Section 3(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act — which tasks him with overseeing the organization, operation, and advancement of cooperative societies — was found to naturally extend to ensuring compliance with Tribunal directives.
SACCO Governance
The ruling draws a firm line between the right to a fair hearing, which belongs to the original adjudicative process, and the enforcement of its outcome. It signals that SACCO officials who have exhausted legal avenues cannot use constitutional petitions to delay or nullify regulatory enforcement actions by the Commissioner.
The petition was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
Case Reference: Lukiri v Commissioner for Cooperatives Development & 3 others [2020] KEHC 7401 (KLR), Petition 21 of 2020, published on The Cooperative Financial and Sacco Law Case Digest Volume 1.
