https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1972

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1972

The Applicant showed some basis for indulgence through its acknowledged debt and prior payment arrangements, but it failed to prove genuine financial incapacity with credible evidence such as audited accounts, bank statements, or cash flow projections. The proposed Kshs. 92,500 instalments were unreasonably low and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELRC 1972 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: AUGUSTINE KITUKU NZIOKI; 1st Respondent/applicant: THE KENYA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT; 2nd Respondent: MURITHI NDEGWA
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 144 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Ruling on Application for Payment by Instalments / Application Under Section 1 A, 1 B and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 21 Rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Outcome
Application partially allowed on revised terms; original prayer for Kshs. 92,500 monthly instalments rejected
Judges
["CN Baari"]
Legal Topics
Payment by Instalments, Stay of Execution, Decretal Sum, Sufficient Cause, Exercise of Discretion, Fruits of Judgment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Law Civil Procedure Judgment Enforcement Payment by Instalments Stay of Execution Decretal Sum Sufficient Cause Exercise of Discretion +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AUGUSTINE KITUKU NZIOKI

Claimant/respondent

THE KENYA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

1st Respondent/applicant

MURITHI NDEGWA

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Relations Ruling on Application for Payment by Instalments / Application Under Section 1 A, 1 B and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 21 Rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant established sufficient cause to warrant payment of the decretal sum by monthly instalments
  2. 2 Whether the proposed instalment plan unfairly prejudiced the Claimant's right to immediate enjoyment of the fruits of judgment
  3. 3 What orders were appropriate in balancing the parties' competing interests

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant showed some basis for indulgence through its acknowledged debt and prior payment arrangements, but it failed to prove genuine financial incapacity with credible evidence such as audited accounts, bank statements, or cash flow projections. The proposed Kshs. 92,500 instalments were unreasonably low and would unduly delay the Claimant's recovery, so the court refused the proposal as filed and substituted a more balanced instalment structure.

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed on revised terms; original prayer for Kshs. 92,500 monthly instalments rejected

Orders

  • The Applicant shall pay the Claimant a lump sum of Kshs. 1,300,000 within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The balance shall thereafter be paid by monthly instalments of Kshs. 200,000 payable on the fifth day of each month, failing which the entire balance shall become immediately payable and the Claimant shall be at liberty to execute.