1. Before Court is the 1st Respondent/Applicant’s Motion application dated 16th March, 2026, brought pursuant to Section IA, lB and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act (CAP 21), Order21Rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The Applicant seeks the following reliefs: -
i. Spent.
ii. Spent
iii. THAT the Applicant herein be allowed to defray the decretal sum in monthly installments of Kshs.92,500/= from 1st April 2026, and thereafter on the first date of each subsequent month until payment in full.
iv. THAT in the interest of justice, the court do grant any further relief it deems fit.
v. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the Motion and the affidavit of Raymond Mwangi, sworn on 16th March, 2026.
3. The Applicant contends that Judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant in this matter on 20th February 2026 for Kshs. 3,330,000, and that upon delivery of the judgment, the Court granted the Applicant a 30 day stay of execution.
4. The Applicant states that it is a learning institution and is experiencing financial difficulties arising from an increase in legal claims and economic challenges following the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. The Applicant states that it has previously entered into installment payment arrangements with other creditors to avoid financial strain that could lead to the closure of the institution.
6. It avers further that the 30 day stay of execution expired on 22nd March 2026 and fears that the Claimant will commence execution thereafter. Consequently, the Applicant seeks leave of the Court to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments of Kshs.92,500, explaining that it has similar repayment arrangements with other creditors and is therefore unable to pay the decretal amount in a lump sum.
7. The Applicant lists 45 pending and concluded cases filed against it in various courts across Kenya, including the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), Magistrates' Courts, and commercial courts. It avers that these matters involve claims by former employees and other creditors against it.
8. The Applicant relies on this extensive litigation history to demonstrate that it is under significant financial pressure and has entered into installment payment arrangements with other creditors, thereby justifying its request to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments rather than in a lump sum.
9. It further states that all the cited cases are accessible through the Court Tracking System (CTS).
10. The Claimant/Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying affidavit sworn on 26th March, 2026, by Namada Simoni.
11. The Claimant argues that the Applicant's mismanagement and the existence of numerous lawsuits cannot justify delaying satisfaction of the decree. The Claimant contends that there is no evidence that the Applicant has settled any judgments arising from the cited cases.
12. The Claimant further submits that the Applicant actively defended the suit herein throughout and was therefore aware of the potential financial consequences, making its present plea of financial inability unconvincing.
13. The Claimant argues that the proposed monthly installments of Kshs.92,500 would take approximately four years to clear a judgment of about Kshs.3.5 million, which arrangement he argues would defeat the purpose of compensation, cause undue hardship, and amount to an unjust delay in the enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment. He maintains that such an arrangement would perpetuate the injustice occasioned by his unfair dismissal rather than provide meaningful redress.
14. The Claimant maintains that the judgment is intended to compensate him for the injustice he suffered and enable him to rebuild his life. He argues that the Applicant has produced no credible evidence of financial hardship, relying only on bare allegations and a list of pending cases.
15. The Claimant further contends that an installment payment plan should not be used to perpetuate injustice or delay his enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment.
16. Consequently, he urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs as an abuse of the court process and allow execution of the decree to proceed.
17. The Respondent/Applicant in rejoinder, lodged a further affidavit sworn on 5th May, 2026, by the same Raymond Mwangi, where he contests the Claimant's Replying Affidavit on the ground that it was sworn by the Claimant's advocate on contested matters of fact, contending that it ought to be struck out as a matter of good practice.
18. The deponent further avers that financial hardship is a recognized basis upon which the Court may exercise its discretion to permit payment by installments. He reiterates that the Applicant has existing installment payment arrangements with various third parties and has annexed copies of consent agreements, rulings, and decrees in support of its averments.
19. The deponent finally asserts that the Applicant has no intention of disobeying the Court's judgment but merely seeks the Court's indulgence to satisfy the decretal sum by installments in light of its financial circumstances.
20. Parties urged the application orally before the court on 12th May, 2026, where Counsels reiterated their respective positions as spelled out in the foregoing paragraphs.
Analysis and Determination
21. The issue falling for determination is whether the Applicant has established sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to permit payment of the decretal sum by monthly installments.
22. Order 21 Rule 12(2) provides thus: -
"After passing of any such decree, the court may, on the application of the judgment debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder, or without the consent of the decree-holder for sufficient cause shown, order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments, with or without interest..."
23. It is clear that the power donated by the foregoing Rule is discretionary. The discretion, however, and as always, must be exercised judicially and upon established principles, as the same is not intended to deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of his judgment without adequate justification.
24. These principles were spelt out in Keshvaji Jethabhai & Bros Ltd v Saleh Abdulla [1959] EA 260, where the court held that in exercising the discretion, the court should consider the circumstances under which the debt was contracted, the conduct of the judgment debtor, the financial position of the debtor, the bona fides of the debtor in offering to pay, and the interests of both parties, bearing in mind that a successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment.
25. Further, in A. Rajabali Alidina v Remtulla Alidina & Another [1961] EA 565, the Court emphasized that mere inability to pay is not, of itself, sufficient cause. The Judgment debtor must make full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances and demonstrate genuine inability to satisfy the decree immediately.
26. Applying the foregoing principles to the instant application, there is no dispute that judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs.3,330,000, and that the Applicant seeks to liquidate the decretal sum through monthly installments of Kshs.92,500.
27. The Applicant relies on financial hardship said to have arisen from numerous legal claims, the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its status as a learning institution. It has further annexed several consent orders and decrees in unrelated matters in which installment payments were allowed.
28. While financial hardship is a relevant consideration, it must be proved by credible evidence. Apart from listing numerous pending cases and exhibiting consent arrangements reached in other matters, the Applicant has not placed before this Court its audited financial statements, management accounts, bank statements, cash flow projections, or any other objective evidence demonstrating its inability to satisfy the decree either wholly or substantially.
29. In my considered view, the existence of multiple suits against the Applicant cannot, standing alone, constitute sufficient cause under Order 21 Rule 12. The suits only demonstrate continuing exposure to liabilities but do not establish the Applicant's actual financial incapacity.
30. It is also not lost on this court that the Applicant's proposal would result in repayment of the decretal sum for approximately three years, which will no doubt substantially postpone the Claimant's enjoyment of the fruits of his judgment.
31. Having said this, I note that the Applicant has demonstrated willingness to honour the decree as exhibited by previous installment arrangements and for having expressly acknowledged the debt.
32. In light of the foregoing, my role in the circumstance is to balance the parties’ competing interests, being on the one hand, the Claimant's right to immediate enjoyment of the fruits of his judgment and, on the other, the Applicant's assertion that immediate lump sum payment of the decretal sum may occasion it severe financial strain.
33. The Court is, however, not persuaded that monthly installments of Kshs.92,500 are reasonable. The proposed amount is, in my view, disproportionately low compared to the decretal sum and would occasion an inordinate delay in the settlement of the decree, and will, in turn, unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
34. Having carefully weighed all the circumstances, I reach the conclusion that the Applicant has established a basis for indulgence, but has failed to justify the extremely modest installments proposed, and I accordingly decline to grant the application in the terms sought. Instead, and in the interests of justice, I grant orders that:-
a) The Applicant shall pay the Claimant a lump sum of Kshs.1,300,000 within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
b) That the balance shall thereafter be liquidated through monthly installments 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.
c) The costs of this application shall be borne by the 1st Respondent/Applicant.
35. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.
Mr. Wanyangu h/b for Mr. Namada for the Claimant/Respondent
Ms. Christine Githii present for the 1st Respondent/Applicant
Ms. Esther S -C/A
i. Spent.
ii. Spent
iii. THAT the Applicant herein be allowed to defray the decretal sum in monthly installments of Kshs.92,500/= from 1st April 2026, and thereafter on the first date of each subsequent month until payment in full.
iv. THAT in the interest of justice, the court do grant any further relief it deems fit.
v. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the Motion and the affidavit of Raymond Mwangi, sworn on 16th March, 2026.
3. The Applicant contends that Judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant in this matter on 20th February 2026 for Kshs. 3,330,000, and that upon delivery of the judgment, the Court granted the Applicant a 30 day stay of execution.
4. The Applicant states that it is a learning institution and is experiencing financial difficulties arising from an increase in legal claims and economic challenges following the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. The Applicant states that it has previously entered into installment payment arrangements with other creditors to avoid financial strain that could lead to the closure of the institution.
6. It avers further that the 30 day stay of execution expired on 22nd March 2026 and fears that the Claimant will commence execution thereafter. Consequently, the Applicant seeks leave of the Court to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments of Kshs.92,500, explaining that it has similar repayment arrangements with other creditors and is therefore unable to pay the decretal amount in a lump sum.
7. The Applicant lists 45 pending and concluded cases filed against it in various courts across Kenya, including the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), Magistrates' Courts, and commercial courts. It avers that these matters involve claims by former employees and other creditors against it.
8. The Applicant relies on this extensive litigation history to demonstrate that it is under significant financial pressure and has entered into installment payment arrangements with other creditors, thereby justifying its request to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments rather than in a lump sum.
9. It further states that all the cited cases are accessible through the Court Tracking System (CTS).
10. The Claimant/Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying affidavit sworn on 26th March, 2026, by Namada Simoni.
11. The Claimant argues that the Applicant's mismanagement and the existence of numerous lawsuits cannot justify delaying satisfaction of the decree. The Claimant contends that there is no evidence that the Applicant has settled any judgments arising from the cited cases.
12. The Claimant further submits that the Applicant actively defended the suit herein throughout and was therefore aware of the potential financial consequences, making its present plea of financial inability unconvincing.
13. The Claimant argues that the proposed monthly installments of Kshs.92,500 would take approximately four years to clear a judgment of about Kshs.3.5 million, which arrangement he argues would defeat the purpose of compensation, cause undue hardship, and amount to an unjust delay in the enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment. He maintains that such an arrangement would perpetuate the injustice occasioned by his unfair dismissal rather than provide meaningful redress.
14. The Claimant maintains that the judgment is intended to compensate him for the injustice he suffered and enable him to rebuild his life. He argues that the Applicant has produced no credible evidence of financial hardship, relying only on bare allegations and a list of pending cases.
15. The Claimant further contends that an installment payment plan should not be used to perpetuate injustice or delay his enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment.
16. Consequently, he urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs as an abuse of the court process and allow execution of the decree to proceed.
17. The Respondent/Applicant in rejoinder, lodged a further affidavit sworn on 5th May, 2026, by the same Raymond Mwangi, where he contests the Claimant's Replying Affidavit on the ground that it was sworn by the Claimant's advocate on contested matters of fact, contending that it ought to be struck out as a matter of good practice.
18. The deponent further avers that financial hardship is a recognized basis upon which the Court may exercise its discretion to permit payment by installments. He reiterates that the Applicant has existing installment payment arrangements with various third parties and has annexed copies of consent agreements, rulings, and decrees in support of its averments.
19. The deponent finally asserts that the Applicant has no intention of disobeying the Court's judgment but merely seeks the Court's indulgence to satisfy the decretal sum by installments in light of its financial circumstances.
20. Parties urged the application orally before the court on 12th May, 2026, where Counsels reiterated their respective positions as spelled out in the foregoing paragraphs.
Analysis and Determination
21. The issue falling for determination is whether the Applicant has established sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to permit payment of the decretal sum by monthly installments.
22. Order 21 Rule 12(2) provides thus: -
"After passing of any such decree, the court may, on the application of the judgment debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder, or without the consent of the decree-holder for sufficient cause shown, order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by instalments, with or without interest..."
23. It is clear that the power donated by the foregoing Rule is discretionary. The discretion, however, and as always, must be exercised judicially and upon established principles, as the same is not intended to deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of his judgment without adequate justification.
24. These principles were spelt out in Keshvaji Jethabhai & Bros Ltd v Saleh Abdulla [1959] EA 260, where the court held that in exercising the discretion, the court should consider the circumstances under which the debt was contracted, the conduct of the judgment debtor, the financial position of the debtor, the bona fides of the debtor in offering to pay, and the interests of both parties, bearing in mind that a successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment.
25. Further, in A. Rajabali Alidina v Remtulla Alidina & Another [1961] EA 565, the Court emphasized that mere inability to pay is not, of itself, sufficient cause. The Judgment debtor must make full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances and demonstrate genuine inability to satisfy the decree immediately.
26. Applying the foregoing principles to the instant application, there is no dispute that judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant for Kshs.3,330,000, and that the Applicant seeks to liquidate the decretal sum through monthly installments of Kshs.92,500.
27. The Applicant relies on financial hardship said to have arisen from numerous legal claims, the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its status as a learning institution. It has further annexed several consent orders and decrees in unrelated matters in which installment payments were allowed.
28. While financial hardship is a relevant consideration, it must be proved by credible evidence. Apart from listing numerous pending cases and exhibiting consent arrangements reached in other matters, the Applicant has not placed before this Court its audited financial statements, management accounts, bank statements, cash flow projections, or any other objective evidence demonstrating its inability to satisfy the decree either wholly or substantially.
29. In my considered view, the existence of multiple suits against the Applicant cannot, standing alone, constitute sufficient cause under Order 21 Rule 12. The suits only demonstrate continuing exposure to liabilities but do not establish the Applicant's actual financial incapacity.
30. It is also not lost on this court that the Applicant's proposal would result in repayment of the decretal sum for approximately three years, which will no doubt substantially postpone the Claimant's enjoyment of the fruits of his judgment.
31. Having said this, I note that the Applicant has demonstrated willingness to honour the decree as exhibited by previous installment arrangements and for having expressly acknowledged the debt.
32. In light of the foregoing, my role in the circumstance is to balance the parties’ competing interests, being on the one hand, the Claimant's right to immediate enjoyment of the fruits of his judgment and, on the other, the Applicant's assertion that immediate lump sum payment of the decretal sum may occasion it severe financial strain.
33. The Court is, however, not persuaded that monthly installments of Kshs.92,500 are reasonable. The proposed amount is, in my view, disproportionately low compared to the decretal sum and would occasion an inordinate delay in the settlement of the decree, and will, in turn, unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
34. Having carefully weighed all the circumstances, I reach the conclusion that the Applicant has established a basis for indulgence, but has failed to justify the extremely modest installments proposed, and I accordingly decline to grant the application in the terms sought. Instead, and in the interests of justice, I grant orders that:-
a) The Applicant shall pay the Claimant a lump sum of Kshs.1,300,000 within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
b) That the balance shall thereafter be liquidated through monthly installments 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.
c) The costs of this application shall be borne by the 1st Respondent/Applicant.
35. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.
C. N. BAARI
JUDGE
Appearance: Mr. Wanyangu h/b for Mr. Namada for the Claimant/Respondent
Ms. Christine Githii present for the 1st Respondent/Applicant
Ms. Esther S -C/A