Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tribunal vacated execution warrants for lack of notice of entry of judgment, ordered reconciliation of the loan account, and allowed repayment by instalments.
Cherowo v Kimtai & another (Commercial Case E094 of 2026) [2026] SCC 199 (KLR) (13 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Claimant proved that he advanced the Respondents Kshs. 370,000 and the alleged repayment of Kshs. 20,000 was not proved. The claim for Kshs. 37,000 as collection charges and legal fees was rejected because it would duplicate a costs award. Instalments were declined because the Respondents provided no evidence of inability to pay in lump sum. Judgment was therefore entered for the principal sum with interest at court rates and costs.
Source excerpt
Gichuki (Suing as one of the administrators of the Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Gichuki & 4 others (Land Case E250 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5268 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court refused stay of execution because the costs decree was independent of the later suit and mere apprehension of execution did not amount to sufficient cause. The court also declined to order satisfaction from the estate because the succession position and estate assets were not before it. However, it exercised discretion to allow partial satisfaction by instalments, but only after requiring an upfront lump-sum payment as a fair condition to protect the respondent.
Source excerpt
Metioni v Mwashinga (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5283 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court declined immediate committal to civil jail because execution for money decrees should first give the judgment debtor a chance to pay, and the appellant had expressed willingness to settle the debt; however, because no concrete instalment plan was proposed and the debt remained unpaid since the consent order on costs, the court ordered payment of Kshs. 15,700 within 30 days, failing which execution would issue, and awarded costs of the application to the respondent.
Source excerpt
Mediplan Ltd v Nzambi & another (Civil Appeal E851 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12740 (KLR) (Civ) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court held that the warrants of attachment and proclamation were founded on an impugned decree that did not accurately reflect the appellate judgment and were therefore irregular. The proclaimed hospital equipment, beds, laboratory machinery and computers were tools of trade essential to the Applicant's medical practice and exempt from attachment under Section 44(1)(ii). However, the Applicant failed to provide a definite and workable installment proposal, so installment relief was declined.
Source excerpt
Karewa & another v Modern Coast Bus Limited & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2049 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant was denied relief because its conduct showed no good faith: it had negotiated and then breached a consent judgment, had previously been found to have engaged in fraudulent conduct concerning insurance settlement, had ignored summons to explain its ability to pay, and had shown no changed or exceptional circumstance since the earlier orders. The court therefore declined to exercise its discretion to stay, vary, or re-schedule payment by instalments.
Source excerpt
Sombi & 8 others v Shimela (Tribunal Case E559 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 309 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)
The respondent failed to satisfy the legal threshold for stay of execution or payment by instalments because he admitted liability, offered no credible proof of financial incapacity, disclosed no income or commitments, and proposed an unfair instalment plan that would delay the claimants’ enjoyment of the judgment; the motion was therefore dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Alex & 15 others v Ndegwa (Tribunal Case E862 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 289 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Tribunal held that the Respondent did not disclose sufficient financial hardship or special circumstances to justify his proposed instalment plan, and his further affidavit was not considered because court filing fees were not paid. However, the Claimants’ counter-proposal for 50% payment and monthly balances amounted to consent to execution by instalments, so the Tribunal used its discretion to grant stay on stricter payment terms.
Source excerpt
Nzioki v Kenya Institute of Management & another (Cause 144 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 1972 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)
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.
Source excerpt
Lumba v Board of Management of Mackinnon Road Girls High School aka Mackinnon Road High School (Commercial Case E174 of 2026) [2026] SCC 76 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Judgment)
The Claimant proved the full debt of Kshs. 549,550/- on a balance of probabilities because the Respondent's later correspondence admitting and proposing payment of that amount superseded its earlier contrary reports, and the Respondent failed to rebut that admission. The court therefore entered judgment for the full amount and, using statutory discretion and instalment-payment principles, ordered structured repayment by instalments with interest and default enforcement.
Source excerpt
Explore more
