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)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to block collection of Kshs.356,300 in legal costs but allowed payment in instalments starting with a Kshs.150,000 lumpsum.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution of a costs decree pending a related suit is available
Refused; the costs awarded were for this suit only and were not dependent on the subsequent suit, and the mere threat of execution is not sufficient cause for stay
The court applied Order 42 Rule 6(1) principles as expressed in Francis Kabaa v Nancy Wambui and James Wangalwa v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto. The costs decree was independent of the outcome of ELCLC No. E028 of 2025, so conditioning stay on that suit had no logical basis. Execution of a lawful costs decree is not itself substantial loss, and no other factors showing irreparable effect were established.
Whether the costs decree may be satisfied from the deceased's estate under Section 37(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Refused; the succession proceedings were unknown to the court and no order in the succession cause existed, making such an order perilous
The court noted the conflict between Section 37(2) (execution against a legal representative of a judgment-debtor who died before satisfaction) and Section 39 (execution of a decree passed against a party as legal representative of a deceased person). The court found that without knowledge of the estate's status or assets, and absent any order in the succession cause, it could not direct that costs be satisfied out of the estate.
Whether leave should issue to pay the costs by instalments
Granted on varied terms: a lumpsum of Kshs.150,000/- within 45 days, then instalments of Kshs.50,000/- per month until full satisfaction
Relying on Keshavji Jethabhai & Bros Ltd v Saleh Abdulla and A Rajabali Alidina v Rehmatulla Alidina via Freight Forwarders Ltd v Elsek & Elsek, the court held the debtor must show bona fides by prompt payment of a fair proportion. Although sympathetic to the applicant's age and financial position, the court found the proposed Kshs.6,000/- monthly instalments would be an unfair bargain on the decree-holder and substituted its own structured payment plan.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution cannot be granted in respect of costs; the mere threat of execution of costs is not sufficient reason to grant stay
- The fact that execution has been put in motion or is likely to be put in motion does not by itself amount to substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- A debtor seeking payment by instalments must show bona fides by arranging prompt payment of a fair proportion of the debt before the court exercises its discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff/applicant is directed to make a lumpsum payment of Kshs.150,000/- within 45 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.The balance of Kshs.206,300/- to be paid in instalments of Kshs.50,000/= every month until full and final satisfaction of the decretal amount
- 3.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1B, 3A, 37(2) and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 rule 1, Order 21 rule 12(2) and Order 22 rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "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)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC No. E250 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5268/eng@2026-08-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.