Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELCLMISC E007 of 2024· [2026] KEELC 5575 (KLR)

J.M. Njenga & Co. Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Ltd

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
21 September 2026
2,964 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court let a company pay a Kshs 9.58 million debt in instalments, but only after a Kshs 1.5 million upfront payment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Thika (Mogeni J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 3 March 2026 by Kimuri Housing Company Ltd, the judgment debtor in a decree of Kshs 9,584,270 plus interest owed to J.M. Njenga & Co. Advocates LLP following taxed legal fees. The applicant sought a stay of execution, leave to pay by monthly instalments of Kshs 300,000 over two years, and leave for Thiongo & Partners Advocates to come on record post-judgment, after warrants of attachment and proclamation of its office equipment. The decree-holder opposed, asserting the applicant was a multi-billion-shilling real estate company with unproven hardship, and counter-offered a Kshs 3,500,000 down payment with Kshs 500,000 monthly instalments. The court framed two issues: sufficient cause for stay, and instalments under Order 21 Rule 12. It held that although the application was filed after proclamation, the threat to the applicant's tools of trade satisfied the substantial loss test, and that the debtor had shown good faith. However, the debtor produced no audited accounts or bank statements and had paid nothing since judgment, so the court granted relief on modified terms: a Kshs 1,500,000 down payment within 14 days, then Kshs 400,000 monthly instalments from 15 October 2026, with automatic lapse of stay on default. Leave to come on record was granted; each party bore its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Stay of execution where application was filed after proclamation

Holding

Substantial loss established because immediate carting away of tools of trade posed a genuine risk of operational collapse, notwithstanding post-proclamation filing

Reasoning

Although the applicant moved the court only after execution was levied, the court held that judicial discretion must remain equitable where execution threatens the very existence of an operational enterprise. The immediate threat to the tools of trade satisfied the substantial loss test, provided an equitable payment structure was implemented to protect the decree-holder.

p. 11
02

Payment by instalments under Order 21 Rule 12

Holding

Sufficient cause shown; instalments granted but on modified terms with a substantial down payment and enhanced monthly rate

Reasoning

The court found the debtor had demonstrated good faith by offering to settle while servicing another court-ordered debt. Outright rejection would destroy the revenue-generating capacity and leave both creditors unpaid. However, the debtor produced no audited accounts or bank statements and paid nothing since judgment, justifying modified, more onerous terms than proposed.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution of a lawful decree does not automatically amount to substantial loss absent clear evidence of exceptional prejudice
  • A decree-holder's rejection of a proposed payment structure does not mandate absolute refusal of instalment relief
  • Instalment orders under Order 21 Rule 12 may incorporate an upfront payment and enhanced monthly rate to balance the equities

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 3/03/2026 allowed with modifications
  2. 2.Stay of execution of the Decree dated 16/02/2026 and any warrants or proclamation issued pursuant thereto granted pending full liquidation of the decretal sum under the structured payment plan
  3. 3.Leave granted to settle the decretal sum of Kshs 9,584,270 plus accrued interest: initial down payment of Kshs 1,500,000 within 14 days, then monthly instalments of Kshs 400,000 payable on or before the 15th of every month commencing 15/10/2026 until full payment
  4. 4.In default of the down payment or any single instalment, the stay lapses automatically and the Decree-Holder may execute for the entire outstanding balance without further reference to the Court
  5. 5.Leave granted to the firm of Thiongo & Partners Advocates to come on record for the Judgment Debtor post-Judgment
  6. 6.Each party to bear its own costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 Rule 22, Order 9 Rules 9 and 10, Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Article 159 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "J.M. Njenga & Co. Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLMISC E007 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5575/eng@2026-09-21

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