Ngochi Wanjiku & Co. Advocates v Kurgat (Miscellaneous Application E312 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2953 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Kenya allowed a judgment debtor to stop attachment of co-owned vehicles and pay a KShs.713,599 decree in instalments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether to stay attachment of the Applicant's movable properties in execution of the decree
Stay of attachment granted; substantial loss shown because the attached vehicles are co-owned/financed by third parties
The court treated the prayer as a stay of execution, an equitable remedy granted at the court's discretion guided by the Wanjohi criteria. The Applicant lost the job that gave rise to the decree, made part payment of KShs.90,000 which the Respondent did not refund (implying acceptance), and the attached vehicles are jointly owned with Mogo Auto Limited and My Credit Limited, showing execution would cause harm not compensable by costs.
Whether the Applicant should be allowed to settle the decree by instalments
Instalment payment ordered under Order 21 Rule 12; the Applicant's financial position, conduct and good faith justified the indulgence
The court invoked Order 21 Rule 12 and the Rajabali Alidina factors. The debt arose from advocate/client costs after the Respondent represented the Applicant in an employment suit; the Applicant had made part payment of the assessed costs and offered a payment plan, and being unemployed with irregular consultancy income he could not pay the whole sum at once. Balancing these factors, the court concluded the Applicant merited the orders sought.
Whether the application is res judicata given an earlier dismissed application dated 10th March 2025
The res judicata objection was not upheld; the court proceeded to grant the prayers
The Respondent argued the application was res judicata because an earlier similar application was dismissed with costs on 2nd April 2025. The Applicant explained the earlier dismissal resulted from his former advocate's illness, not neglect. The court did not expressly rule on res judicata but reached the merits and allowed the application, implying the objection did not prevail.
Legal principles established
#- For a stay of execution to be granted, the applicant must show sufficient cause, substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and offer security for due performance of the decree
- Substantial loss does not mean mere inconvenience or financial burden, but a real risk of irreparable harm
- In an application to settle a decretal sum by instalments, the court considers the circumstances under which the debt was contracted, the conduct of the debtor, his financial position, and his bona fides in offering to pay a fair proportion of the debt at once
Court orders
#- 1.An order staying attachment of the Applicant's movable properties in execution of decree for money, being Motor Vehicles Registration Numbers KCL166L and KBL466H
- 2.An order for payment of the decretal sum by instalments until satisfaction of the decree in full: KShs.300,000 to be paid in December 2025, and KShs.30,000 monthly from January 2026 until payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 Rule 22(1), 17, Order 40(1)(a), Order 21 Rule 12(1),(2), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngochi Wanjiku & Co. Advocates v Kurgat (Miscellaneous Application E312 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2953 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 27th August 2025 in ELRC Matter (former E582 of 2023 decree). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2953/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.