Murige v Kathare (Claim E061 of 2025) [2025] SCC 33 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi Small Claims Court allowed a judgment debtor to pay a Kshs 390,000 debt in monthly instalments because he proved he had already paid a fair share.
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 Court should grant a stay of execution of its Judgment of 24th April 2026
- 2.Whether the Court should make an Order for payment of the decretal sum in instalments
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution and payment by instalments should be granted
The court allowed payment of the decretal sum of Kshs 390,000 in monthly instalments of Kshs 10,000 from September 2026, deducting the Kshs 64,500 already paid, with execution to issue promptly upon default.
Applying the settled test in Kshevji Jethabai & Brothers Limited v Saleh Abdulla, the judgment debtor must demonstrate bona fides by paying a fair proportion of the debt. The Respondent deponed that he had paid Kshs 64,500 as evidenced by annexures JM 1. The Claimant failed to respond to the application, so that ground went uncontroverted. On that basis the court found the bona fides established and allowed instalment payment, with execution to follow any default.
Legal principles established
#- The primary consideration for allowing payment of a decree by instalments is that the judgment debtor must demonstrate bona fides by payment of a fair proportion of the debt.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's application dated 11th May 2025 is allowed
- 2.The Respondent is to pay the Claimant Kshs 10,000/= from the month of September 2026
- 3.The monthly instalments are to be paid on or before the 5th of every successive month
- 4.Kshs 64,500/= is to be deducted from the decretal amount awarded of Kshs 390,000
- 5.Failure of the Respondent to pay any instalment, execution shall fall promptly
- 6.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment; the matter is before an Adjudicator exercising first-instance small claims jurisdiction
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.
The primary consideration for allowing payment of a decree by instalments is for the judgment debtor to demonstrate bona fides by payment of a fair proportion of the debt.
The upshot is that the Respondents applications dated 11th May 2025 is allowed. The Respondent is to pay the Claimant Kshs 10,000/= from the month of September 2026.
Each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date contradictions: the judgment being executed is dated 24th April 2026 and directions were on 30th July 2026, yet the ruling was written on 5th August 2026 and delivered on 29th October 2025.
The application is dated 11th May 2025 but seeks a stay of a judgment of 24th April 2026 - the application predates the judgment it seeks to stay.
The court records that it was considering 'the Respondents Notice of Motion Application' but elsewhere refers to 'the Applicant', using applicant/respondent labels inconsistently for the same party.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murige v Kathare (Claim E061 of 2025) [2025] SCC 33 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/33/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.