Birech v Fuji Motors EA Limited & another (Civil Suit 10 of 2014) [2026] KEHC 13 (KLR) (7 January 2026) (Ruling)

Birech v Fuji Motors EA Limited & another (Civil Suit 10 of 2014) [2026] KEHC 13 (KLR) (7 January 2026) (Ruling)

The applicant demonstrated necessity for execution before taxation due to risk of asset dissipation by the defendants and undue delay. Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to allow execution of the decree save for costs, and the absence of opposition supports the applicant's apprehension. Justice demands the successful party enjoy the fruits of judgment without being held hostage by the taxation process.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 13 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: John Kimeli Birech; 1st Defendant: Fuji Motors EA Limited; 2nd Defendant: SB Holdings Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 January 2026
Case Number
Civil Suit 10 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution Before Ascertainment of Costs
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Ascertainment of Costs, Section 94 Civil Procedure Act
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Ascertainment of Costs Section 94 Civil Procedure Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kimeli Birech

Plaintiff/applicant

Fuji Motors EA Limited

1st Defendant

SB Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Execution Before Ascertainment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decree should be executed before ascertainment of the Plaintiff’s party and party costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated necessity for execution before taxation due to risk of asset dissipation by the defendants and undue delay. Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to allow execution of the decree save for costs, and the absence of opposition supports the applicant's apprehension. Justice demands the successful party enjoy the fruits of judgment without being held hostage by the taxation process.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Decree dated 9th August 2025 to be executed save for the portion relating to party and party costs.
  • Execution in respect of party and party costs stayed pending taxation and ascertainment.