Osir v Olima (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 882 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court refused to let a judgment debtor pay in instalments and refused to add interest, saying appeals — not review — fix decisions you dislike.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was shown for payment of the decree by instalments under Order 21 Rule 12
Application dismissed; the Defendant gave no evidence of inability to pay or of any attempt at settlement, and filed the application about a month after a notice of execution without any payment in the interim
Order 21 Rule 12 gives the court discretion to allow instalments for sufficient cause. Applying Keshvaji Jethabhai principles, mere inability to pay at once is insufficient; bona fides must be shown by prompt payment of a fair proportion. Here the Defendant made no payment since judgment and offered no evidence of economic hardship beyond assertion, so the discretion could not be exercised in her favour.
Whether the failure to award interest on the Kshs 330,000 refund was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1
Not an error; interest is discretionary and was deliberately not granted because the Plaintiff herself withheld the Defendant's title deed; no party should reap where they did not sow; the proper remedy was appeal, not review
Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act makes interest discretionary, considered on the evidence. The court had deemed it just not to grant interest because the Plaintiff withheld the title deed; that was a substantive determination, not a typographical error correctable by review. A party aggrieved by a discretionary determination must appeal; review would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own decision.
Costs of the two applications
Both applications dismissed; each party to bear their own costs
Having dismissed both the Defendant's instalments application and the Plaintiff's review application, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs, with the review application dismissed with no orders to costs.
Legal principles established
#- The mere inability of a judgment debtor to pay a decretal sum in full at once is not sufficient reason to order payment by instalments; the debtor must show bona fides by arranging prompt payment of a fair proportion
- Review is not an appeal in disguise; a review lies only for patent error apparent on the face of the record
- A party who considers a discretionary ruling on interest erroneous should appeal rather than seek review
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's application dated 27th May 2024 seeking to settle the decretal sum by instalments is dismissed
- 2.The Plaintiff's application dated 8th July 2024 seeking review of the judgment of 25th January 2024 to add interest is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 3.Each party shall bear their own costs of the applications
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; instalments under Order 21 Rule 12
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osir v Olima (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 882 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (suit in respect of LR No. Kajiado/Kaputiei North/15688/15689). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/882/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.