https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kecopt/2026/262

Eastleigh Route Sacco Ltd v Kamau (Tribunal Case 12 of 2021) [2026] KECOPT 262 (KLR) (15 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECOPT 262 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Cooperative Tribunal Tribunal Case 12 of 2021 J Mwatsama, Ag Chair, B Sawe, Chair, F Lotuiya, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members June 15, 2026 Between Eastleigh Route Sacco Limited Decree holder and Dominic Mwangi Kamau Judgment debtor Ruling 1.The Application for determination is the Judgement Debtor/Application’s Notice of Motion dated 24th November, 2025, wherein the Respondent seeks the following orders: -1.Spent2.Spent 3.That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to furnish the Applicant with an updated, itemized and reconciled statement of account within thirty (30) days reflecting all payments made to date. 4.That the Honourable Court allows the Applicant to liquidate the outstanding decretal sum by monthly installments of Ksh. 10,000/= pending the anticipated sale of L.R. No. 19150/560 (IR 65028) and/or on such terms. 5.That the costs of the Application be provided for.The Application is based on the grounds on the face thereof and is supported by the Affidavit of the Judgement Debtor/Applicant sworn on 24th November, 2025.The Decree Holder/Respondent opposes the Judgement Debtor/Applicant’s Application vide Grounds of Opposition dated 15th April, 2026. Judgement Debtor/applicant’s Case 2.The Judgement Debtor/Applicant set out the following grounds of his application inter alia:1.The warrants of arrest to commit the Applicant to civil jail for non-payment of the outstanding decretal sum were issued on 4th March 2025 when the Applicant was not present before the Tribunal.2.Since the issuance of the said warrants, the Applicant has made consistent, substantial and demonstrable payments towards the outstanding decretal sum, including the following:i.On 5th March, 2025, a payment of Ksh, 20,000/= Ref. Tc54h1ch8y To Eastleigh Route Sacco Limited;ii.On 24th May, 2025, a payment of Ksh. 50,000/= Ref. Teo2z9s23u To Eastleigh Route Savings And Credit Co-operative Society Limited;iii.Subsequent payments as follows:A payment of Ksh.10,000/= Ref. Tig96t4yzv To Eastleigh Route Savings And Credit Co-operative Society Limited;A payment of Ksh. 10,000/= Ref. Tjbfn75rpc To Eastleigh Route Savings And Credit Co-operative Society Limited;iv.On 12th October, 2025, a payment of Ksh.10,000/=ref. Tjbfn75rpc To Eastleigh Route Savings And Credit Co-operative Society Limited. 3.All these payments demonstrate the Applicant’s sustained commitment and good faith in settling the decretal sum. 4.The Applicant has repeatedly sought reconciliation of his loan account and requested an updated statement of account from the Respondent but the Respondent has yet to respond, causing ongoing prejudice and uncertainty to the Applicant. 5.The Applicant has also expressed willingness to record a consent on settlement terms and on lifting the warrants, but these efforts have not elicited any response from the Respondent. 6.The continued existence of the warrants exposes the Applicant to serious hardship and has hindered the sale of the property as the warrants have curtailed the Applicant’s movements. 7.The Respondent will suffer no prejudice if the orders sought are granted. 3.In his Supporting Affidavit, the Judgement Debtor/Applicant reiterates the grounds of the application and avers that he had been unwell and was unable to appear before the Tribunal when the warrants were issued against him. Decree Holder/respondent’s Case. 4.In its Grounds of Opposition, the Decree Holder/Respondent states the following:1.The application is bad in law and is abuse of the judicial process of the court.2.The Application is not forthright to the Court, execution in this matter has crystalized, the Applicant was arrested thereafter and thereafter made some deposit but refused to make monthly payments as agreed.3.The Applicant is seeking stay of execution of the decree through the back door.4.The Applicant has made several proposals in court regarding the decretal sum and it is late in the day to change facts.5.The application is hopeless and lacks merits.6.The Applicant has not come to this Honourable Court with clean hands. Analysis and Determination. 5.We have considered all the documents and evidence filed by the parties in respect of the application herein. 6.The issue arising for our determination is whether or not Judgement Debtor/Applicant’s application has merit.1.In determining the issue above, we have to address the prayers sought by the Applicant.i.The prayer by the Applicant to be issued with a statement of account at this stage of the proceedings is one that should not arise at this juncture, when the decretal sum is clear and the Applicant is able to prove what he has paid. However, this Tribunal has inherent powers to do justice and can therefore order the taking of accounts during execution proceedings. We note for instance, that two payments of Ksh.10,000/= said by the Applicant to have been paid to Eastleigh Route Savings And Credit Co-operative Society Limited have the same reference number Ref. Tjbfn75rpc. It is in the interest of justice that the Decree-Holder receives its just dues and the Judgement-Debtor pays what is actually due. For this reason, we find that the parties should reconcile accounts instead of engaging the Tribunal in new proceedings at this stage.ii.the Judgement Debtor/Applicant has also prayed to be allowed to pay the decretal sums by way of monthly installments of Ksh. 10,000/= until payment in full. Our decision on this matter will determine which orders the Tribunal will issue suo moto on account of the Warrants, prayer 2 for stay being spent.As at 30th November, 2023, the decretal sum as per the warrants of Arrest totaled to Ksh. 833,459/=. On 31st May, 2024, the Applicant was committed to civil jail for seven days for failing to pay the decretal sum with a condition he would not be released before the end of the said period, unless the sum of Ksh. 100,000/= was paid towards the decretal sum. It is on record that the said sum of money was paid and the Applicant was released. We note that as at 7th March, 2025, the decretal sum stood at Ksh. 620,959/= to mean that by then, the sum of Ksh. 211,000/= had been paid. There is, therefore an indication of the Applicant’s effort to pay the decretal sum, albeit inconsistently. The Applicant’s averment that he be allowed to liquidate the decretal sum by installments of Ksh. 10.000/= pending sale of his property is however not viable. We note that the Applicant has been citing the sale of his property for some time, to no avail. We also note that there have been previous promises or proposals to pay the balance by installments but they have not been met consistently.This position, however, does not prevent the Tribunal from exercise its discretion in terms of Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules.In KTK Advocates v Baringo County Government (2018) eKLR, the Court cited with approval the case of Keshval Jethabhai & Brothers Ltd v Saleh Abdul [1959] EA 260 which laid down the principles in considering applications for payment by installments, the Court stated:“…..the court stated the principles that should apply in considering such an application, namely that;1.each case must be considered on its own merit;2.mere inability to pay in full at once is not sufficient reason for exercising the discretion;3.the debtor should show bonafides by arranging prompt payment and that though hardship may be a factor;4.the court has to consider whether indulgence should be given to the debtor without prejudice to the decree holder.It is trite that the Judgement Debtor/Applicant is entitled to the fruits of his Judgement. In the present case, we have observed that the Judgement Debtor has made some effort to settle the decretal sum but claims inability to pay the balance at once due to liquidity issues. In a bid to balance the rights of both parties, we are inclined to exercise our discretion to allow the Applicant to pay the balance by way of monthly installments. However, as we have already held, the monthly sum of Ksh. 10,000/= Proposed is on the lower side, considering the balance of the decretal amount on record and also considering that the length of time it would take the Applicant to clear the balance would be prejudicial to the Respondent. In the interest of justice, we shall thus require the Applicant to pay an advance lumpsum amount and an enhanced monthly installment sum. 7.In the Upshot, we allow the Judgement Debtor/Applicant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 24th November, 2026 and order as follows:1.The Warrants of arrest herein are suspended.2.The Judgement Debtor/Applicant to pay the sum of Ksh. 100,000/= on or before the 15th day of July, 2026.3.The Judgement Debtor/Applicant to liquidate the balance of the Decretal sum by way of monthly installments of Ksh. 40,000/= effective 5th August, 2026 and thereafter by the 5th day of each succeeding month until payment in full.4.In the event of default of payment, execution to issue.5.Parties to meet and reconcile the accounts.6.We make no order as to costs. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. J. MWATSAMA AG. CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026HON. P. AOL MEMBER SIGNED 15/6/2026Court Assistant - MutaiMr. Getange advocate for the Claimant/Respondent