Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCLC No. E250 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 21st January, 2026)· [2026] KEELC 5270 (KLR)

Gichuki (Suing as on of the administrators of Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Mwananchi Credit Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E193 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5270 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 August 2026
MCMBOGO C.G.
1,318 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused to suspend execution of a costs decree because the applicant never asked to set aside the consent order that governed payment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, who had instituted ELCLC No. E250 of 2024 in her representative capacity as administrator of the estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter (Deceased), brought a notice of motion dated 21st January, 2026 seeking a stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 6th October, 2025 and the resultant decree for costs of Kshs.367,025/- taxed in favour of the respondent. In the alternative she sought an order under Section 37(2) of the Civil Procedure Act that the costs be paid from the estate, or further alternative, leave to liquidate the award by monthly instalments of Kshs.6,000/- citing her advanced age of 73 years and limited means. She argued the litigation was undertaken for the estate's benefit, that a fresh competent suit (ELCLC No. E028 of 2025) over the same subject matter was pending, and that a stay was warranted under Order 22 rule 25. The respondent opposed, contending the application was a delay tactic, that the consent dated 27th October, 2025 should have addressed any payment terms, and that costs could not issue against the estate since the earlier suit could not bind it for want of joinder of all administrators. The court, Hon. Mbogo C.G. J, held that the consent dated 27th October, 2025, adopted as an order of the court, was central; the applicant had not sought to set aside or vary it, and granting instalments would be contrary to it. The notice of motion was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could grant stay of execution or direct payment of costs from the estate in the face of an unchallenged consent order

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not seek to set aside or vary the consent dated 27th October, 2025 which had been adopted as an order of the court, and the reliefs sought would be contrary to that consent

Reasoning

The court identified the consent dated 27th October, 2025, adopted as a court order, as central. The applicant sought stay of execution, payment of costs from the estate, and instalments, all of which would modify the consent's effect. Since no prayer to set aside or vary the consent was made, and no justification for such variation was offered, the court held it could not determine the merits of the application and dismissed it.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking relief inconsistent with a consent order adopted by the court must first seek to set aside or vary that consent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 21st January 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 39(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 37(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 12(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 rule 25
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1B, 3A, 39(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 on of the administrators of Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Mwananchi Credit Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E193 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5270 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC No. E250 of 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 21st January, 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5270/eng@2026-08-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.