1. The relationship between an Advocate and a Client is often a dance of mutual trust, but when the music stops and the bill of costs is drawn, that dance frequently descends into a bare-knuckle brawl over execution. The dispute before me is a classic manifestation of this post-judgment fallout. At the heart of this application is a delicate question of commercial survival: should the Court permit a willing but financially constrained debtor to liquidate a crystallized debt over time, or should it allow the decree holder to swing the heavy axe of bankruptcy?
Background of Facts
2. The genesis of this application is a Certificate of Taxation issued on 19th November, 2025. It certified the costs payable by the Client/Applicant (Peter Kenneth Nduati) to the Advocate/Respondent (KTK Advocates) at Kshs. 3,200,000/=. Consequently, a formal decree was extracted on 29th January, 2026, granting the Respondent the said sum alongside interest at 14% p.a. from 16th June, 2025 until payment in full.
3. Armed with this decree, the Respondent issued a Statutory Demand dated 9th March 2026, requiring the Applicant to pay the debt within twenty-one (21) days, failing which bankruptcy proceedings would be commenced.
The Application and Reliefs Sought
4. Jolted by the looming threat of insolvency, the Applicant approached this Court via a Notice of Motion dated 2nd April, 2026, brought under a Certificate of Urgency. The Applicant seeks to stay the execution of the decree and any consequential bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, he seeks the Court's leave to liquidate the decretal sum in monthly instalments of Kshs. 250,000/=. He pleads that while he is willing to settle the debt, he is currently financially constrained, and a declaration of bankruptcy would occasion him irreparable reputational and financial ruin.
5. The Respondent vehemently opposes the application through Grounds of Opposition dated 13th April, 2026. The Respondent asserts that the application lacks urgency, that it is an improper attempt to interfere with separate insolvency proceedings (Nairobi HC IP No. E011 of 2026). It is further submitted that the offer to pay in instalments is purely speculative as there is no evidence of the source of funds.
Issues for Determination
6. The Court has considered the Application, the Grounds of Opposition and the oral highlights made by the Counsel for the parties. The Court frames a single issue for determination as follows:
( a) Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion to order the payment of the decree by instalments, and consequently grant a stay of execution.
Analysis
7. The Court has been addressed on the substantive issue of payment by instalments. Under Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this Court wields a discretionary jurisdiction to permit a judgment debtor to pay a decree by instalments. It is a delicate balancing act. The Court cannot employ execution as a guillotine that stifles commercial enterprise, nor can it allow a judgment debtor to convert a crystallized decree into an endless, interest-free loan at the expense of a successful litigant. See Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited [2015] KEHC 4696 (KLR).
8. The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s offer is a speculative stratagem designed solely to derail the independent insolvency proceedings. Ordinarily, this Court views last-minute applications for instalments in the face of imminent bankruptcy with profound suspicion. However, equity looks at the substance, not the form, and heavily weighs the bona fides (good faith) of the judgment debtor.
9. In this instance, the Applicant's plea of financial constraint is salvaged by his own subsequent conduct. The record reflects that the Applicant has previously deposited the sum of Kshs. 250,000/= as directed by this Court. This is not the conduct of a recalcitrant debtor seeking to abscond or frustrate the decree holder; it is a redeeming act of a litigant acting in good faith. A debtor who places their money where their mouth is deserves the indulgence of this Court. See Lavington Security Limited v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd [2014] KEHC 8722 (KLR).
10. That being said, the Court must also protect the economic interests of the Respondent. The fees are owed to a Law Firm of Advocates who make a living out of the practice of Law. Their right to earn a livelihood has to be equally protected by this Court. The proposed instalment of Kshs. 250,000/= per month against a principal decree of Kshs. 3,200,000/= (which continues to attract interest at 14% p.a.) is commercially untenable. It would unnecessarily prolong the Respondent's wait and erode the time value of the money.
11. To strike a just commercial balance, the Court elevates the monthly instalment to Kshs. 400,000/= per month. This ensures the debt is liquidated within a commercially reasonable timeframe while sparing the Applicant the fatal blow of a bankruptcy declaration. An order staying the execution of the decree effectively halts the foundation upon which the statutory demand and subsequent insolvency proceedings are built, allowing the parties to resolve the debt methodically.
Determination
12. Having weighed the competing interests and the demonstrated good faith of the Applicant, the Court allows the Application dated 2nd April, 2026 as follows:
(a) THAT this Honourable Court HEREBY allows the Client/Applicant to liquidate the decretal sum of Kshs. 3,200,000.00 (or the remaining balance thereof) in monthly instalments of Kshs. 400,000 until payment in full. In the meantime, a Stay of execution is HEREBY granted.
(b) THAT the first instalment of Kshs. 400,000/= shall be payable on or before the 10th August, 2026, and subsequent instalments on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month, until payment in full.
(c) THAT in the event of default of payment of any single instalment as ordered, the stay of execution shall automatically lapse without further reference to this Court, and the Respondent shall be at liberty to execute for the entire outstanding balance.
(d) THAT there shall be no order as to costs of the Application.
13. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Wakwaya for the Client/Applicant.
Mr. Kipkorir for the Client/Respondent.
Mr. John Paul - Court Assistant
Background of Facts
2. The genesis of this application is a Certificate of Taxation issued on 19th November, 2025. It certified the costs payable by the Client/Applicant (Peter Kenneth Nduati) to the Advocate/Respondent (KTK Advocates) at Kshs. 3,200,000/=. Consequently, a formal decree was extracted on 29th January, 2026, granting the Respondent the said sum alongside interest at 14% p.a. from 16th June, 2025 until payment in full.
3. Armed with this decree, the Respondent issued a Statutory Demand dated 9th March 2026, requiring the Applicant to pay the debt within twenty-one (21) days, failing which bankruptcy proceedings would be commenced.
The Application and Reliefs Sought
4. Jolted by the looming threat of insolvency, the Applicant approached this Court via a Notice of Motion dated 2nd April, 2026, brought under a Certificate of Urgency. The Applicant seeks to stay the execution of the decree and any consequential bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, he seeks the Court's leave to liquidate the decretal sum in monthly instalments of Kshs. 250,000/=. He pleads that while he is willing to settle the debt, he is currently financially constrained, and a declaration of bankruptcy would occasion him irreparable reputational and financial ruin.
5. The Respondent vehemently opposes the application through Grounds of Opposition dated 13th April, 2026. The Respondent asserts that the application lacks urgency, that it is an improper attempt to interfere with separate insolvency proceedings (Nairobi HC IP No. E011 of 2026). It is further submitted that the offer to pay in instalments is purely speculative as there is no evidence of the source of funds.
Issues for Determination
6. The Court has considered the Application, the Grounds of Opposition and the oral highlights made by the Counsel for the parties. The Court frames a single issue for determination as follows:
( a) Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion to order the payment of the decree by instalments, and consequently grant a stay of execution.
Analysis
7. The Court has been addressed on the substantive issue of payment by instalments. Under Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this Court wields a discretionary jurisdiction to permit a judgment debtor to pay a decree by instalments. It is a delicate balancing act. The Court cannot employ execution as a guillotine that stifles commercial enterprise, nor can it allow a judgment debtor to convert a crystallized decree into an endless, interest-free loan at the expense of a successful litigant. See Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited [2015] KEHC 4696 (KLR).
8. The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s offer is a speculative stratagem designed solely to derail the independent insolvency proceedings. Ordinarily, this Court views last-minute applications for instalments in the face of imminent bankruptcy with profound suspicion. However, equity looks at the substance, not the form, and heavily weighs the bona fides (good faith) of the judgment debtor.
9. In this instance, the Applicant's plea of financial constraint is salvaged by his own subsequent conduct. The record reflects that the Applicant has previously deposited the sum of Kshs. 250,000/= as directed by this Court. This is not the conduct of a recalcitrant debtor seeking to abscond or frustrate the decree holder; it is a redeeming act of a litigant acting in good faith. A debtor who places their money where their mouth is deserves the indulgence of this Court. See Lavington Security Limited v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Co. Ltd [2014] KEHC 8722 (KLR).
10. That being said, the Court must also protect the economic interests of the Respondent. The fees are owed to a Law Firm of Advocates who make a living out of the practice of Law. Their right to earn a livelihood has to be equally protected by this Court. The proposed instalment of Kshs. 250,000/= per month against a principal decree of Kshs. 3,200,000/= (which continues to attract interest at 14% p.a.) is commercially untenable. It would unnecessarily prolong the Respondent's wait and erode the time value of the money.
11. To strike a just commercial balance, the Court elevates the monthly instalment to Kshs. 400,000/= per month. This ensures the debt is liquidated within a commercially reasonable timeframe while sparing the Applicant the fatal blow of a bankruptcy declaration. An order staying the execution of the decree effectively halts the foundation upon which the statutory demand and subsequent insolvency proceedings are built, allowing the parties to resolve the debt methodically.
Determination
12. Having weighed the competing interests and the demonstrated good faith of the Applicant, the Court allows the Application dated 2nd April, 2026 as follows:
(a) THAT this Honourable Court HEREBY allows the Client/Applicant to liquidate the decretal sum of Kshs. 3,200,000.00 (or the remaining balance thereof) in monthly instalments of Kshs. 400,000 until payment in full. In the meantime, a Stay of execution is HEREBY granted.
(b) THAT the first instalment of Kshs. 400,000/= shall be payable on or before the 10th August, 2026, and subsequent instalments on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month, until payment in full.
(c) THAT in the event of default of payment of any single instalment as ordered, the stay of execution shall automatically lapse without further reference to this Court, and the Respondent shall be at liberty to execute for the entire outstanding balance.
(d) THAT there shall be no order as to costs of the Application.
13. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Wakwaya for the Client/Applicant.
Mr. Kipkorir for the Client/Respondent.
Mr. John Paul - Court Assistant