Matikela v Makato (Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 4097 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court at Voi refused to jail a man over a Kshs 33,500 debt, ruling creditors must prove a debtor can pay but deliberately won't.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant should be committed to civil jail for non-payment of Kshs 33,500/=
No - the Respondent failed to establish the Appellant's financial reasonableness or any act of bad faith; the evidence of financial inability was uncontroverted
Under Order 22 rule 34 and Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act, committal requires proof that the debtor has means to pay but refuses, or has dishonestly transferred/concealed property. The Appellant deposed he is a casual-job stone mason with no bank account, annexed school fee structures and photographs; the Respondent led no evidence disproving inability. On a balance of probabilities the explanation was honest, so committal was unwarranted.
Whether committal to civil jail for failing to pay a debt is unconstitutional
No - civil jail is a lawful limitation of liberty where due process is followed; the Respondent followed due process by issuing the notice to show cause and affording the Appellant a hearing
Article 25 lists non-derogable rights; liberty is not among them. Citing Beatrice Wanjiku and Charles Lutta Kasamani, the court held committal is lawful and a last resort where due process is observed. The Appellant was served and heard via his affidavit, satisfying Section 38, so no constitutional violation arose from the notice to show cause.
Whether a reasonable instalment proposal was offered
The Kshs 1,000/= monthly plan (34 months) was unreasonable and disallowed, but under Order 22 rule 12(2) the court allowed payment in three equal monthly instalments of Kshs 11,166.00 with liberty to execute on default
Applying the Raja Bali Alidina criteria (circumstances of the debt, conduct, financial position, bona fides), the court noted the proposal was first made only after the notice to show cause, and the creditor's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment had to be weighed. A three-instalment plan balanced both parties' interests, with execution permitted on default.
Legal principles established
#- For committal to civil jail to succeed, the judgment creditor must satisfy the court of the judgment debtor's financial ability to pay but deliberate refusal/neglect, or dishonesty/bad faith in relation to property
- Committal to civil jail of a judgment debtor is a lawful limitation of the right to liberty where due process is followed, and is a last-resort measure considered on its own merits
- In considering instalment payment of a money decree, the court considers the circumstances of the debt, the debtor's conduct, financial position and bona fides in offering a fair proportion at once
Court orders
#- 1.The Application to commit the Appellant to civil jail is declined
- 2.The Appellant's application to pay the decretal sum of Kshs 33,500/= is allowed, payable by three equal monthly instalments of Kshs 11,166.00 effective 1.8.2026 and on the 1st day of subsequent months until payment in full
- 3.In default of payment of any instalment, the Respondent is at liberty to execute the decree against the Appellant
- 4.Costs of Kshs 8,100.00 awarded to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 38 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010 and Order 22 rules 31 and 34 and Order 21 rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (execution, committal and instalment payments)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matikela v Makato (Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 4097 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4097/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.