Kisoya v Maingi (Civil Case 198 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a judgment debtor to pay by instalments but on much tougher terms than she asked, after finding her application late and made in bad faith.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the defendant should be allowed to defray the decretal sum by instalments
- 2.If so, whether an order for instalments of Ksh. 50,000/= per month is fair and reasonable
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment debtor showed sufficient cause to be allowed to pay the decretal sum by instalments
No sufficient cause was shown; the application was an afterthought, filed late, with no payments made and an attempt to defeat execution by transferring a motor vehicle
Judgment was delivered on 27/2/2023 and the decree issued on 7/1/2025, yet the application was only filed in March 2026 upon further execution attempts. The defendant had never paid anything towards the decretal sum and had transferred a vehicle to a third party to avoid execution. Her alleged financial constraints were unsupported by sufficient material, and the loan relied upon was a post-judgment obligation.
Whether the proposed instalments of Ksh. 50,000/= per month were fair and reasonable
The proposal was unreasonable given the balance in excess of Ksh. 2 Million accruing interest
The balance exceeded Ksh. 2 Million and continued to accrue interest; paying Ksh. 50,000/= monthly would take over three years. The court nonetheless exercised its discretion to grant instalment relief on stricter terms: Ksh. 500,000/= upfront and monthly instalments of not less than Ksh. 100,000/=, with execution for the entire balance upon default.
Whether failure to invoke the appropriate statutory provisions was fatal to the application
No - the court may still consider the application on the substantive merits
Although the defendant invoked Order 22 rule 22 rather than the more apt Order 21 rule 12(2), the court held the mis-invocation was not fatal, since the substance of the prayer - instalment payment and stay - was covered by the discretion conferred under both provisions.
Legal principles established
#- The court has discretion to allow payment of a decretal sum by instalments, but the judgment debtor must show sufficient cause, and the court may impose such terms as it thinks fit.
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant/judgment debtor shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Ksh. 500,000/= on or before the 4th day of August, 2026
- 2.The defendant to liquidate the balance of the decretal sum after payment of the above sum in monthly instalments of NOT LESS than Ksh. 100,000/= with effect from 10th September, 2026 and thereafter on or before the 10th day of every subsequent month until payment in full
- 3.A stay of execution shall be granted as long as the judgment debtor complies with the orders of the court
- 4.In default of payment of the initial or any one instalment, the decree holder shall be at liberty to execute for the entire balance
- 5.Costs of this application be borne by the defendant/judgment debtor
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 21 rule 12(2) and Order 22 rule 22(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Instalments of Ksh. 50,000/= per month as proposed by the defendant
The proposal was unreasonable, would take over three years, and the defendant showed no willingness or sufficient cause
Unconditional stay of execution
Stay granted only conditionally upon compliance with the instalment orders
Costs
Costs of this application be borne by the defendant/judgment debtor.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a) The defendant/judgment debtor shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Ksh. 500,000/= on or before the 4th day of August, 2026;
d) In default of payment of the initial or any one instalment, the decree holder shall be at liberty to execute for the entire balance;
e) Costs of this application be borne by the defendant/judgment debtor.
I agree that the application was filed quite late in the day and may be termed as an afterthought.
the court's discretion to order payment of the decretal amount in instalments is one which must be exercised in a judicial and not arbitrary manner.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisoya v Maingi (Civil Case 198 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Makindu SPMC Civil Case No 198 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/418/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.