Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 1st July, 2026 (decree in a concluded Small Claims suit, judgment delivered 5th June, 2026)

Progressive Credit Ltd v Wanjala & another (Commercial Case E2841 of 2025) [2026] SCC 212 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
14 August 2026
MAM.E Aligula
1,413 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Small Claims Court at Eldoret (M.E Aligula, RM) determined a Notice of Motion dated 1st July, 2026 in which the judgment debtors, James Oduori Pamba and his wife, sought leave to satisfy a decretal balance of Kshs. 245,162.84 by instalments following a judgment delivered on 5th June, 2026 awarding Kshs. 293,162.84 subject to a counterclaim/set-off of Kshs. 48,000/=. The 1st applicant deponed that his cyber business at the former Moi University West Campus had suffered after the university's indefinite closure in 2024, that he supports five children, and that his wife earns about Kshs. 10,000/= monthly; he proposed instalments of Kshs. 20,000/=. The respondent/decree-holder opposed, alleging inconsistencies in the applicants' business records (including an erroneous 29th June 2026 entry, rent receipt irregularities and wage inconsistencies) and bad faith, and proposed an initial payment of Kshs. 100,000/= with monthly instalments of Kshs. 40,000/=. The court applied Section 36(1)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act and Rule 27 of the Small Claims Court Rules, holding that the burden lay on the applicants to demonstrate inability to pay in lump sum. Although the discrepancies raised legitimate questions about their disclosure, the court found they did not entirely displace the evidence of the applicants' financial circumstances. Balancing the parties' interests, the court allowed the application on its own terms: Kshs. 70,000/= within fourteen days, monthly instalments of Kshs. 30,000/= from September 2026, execution on default, no orders as to costs, and leave to appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicants' application to satisfy the decretal sum of Kshs. 245,162.84 by instalments is meritorious

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants merited an order for payment of the decretal sum by instalments

Holding

Yes, but on terms set by the court: Kshs.70,000/= initial payment and Kshs.30,000/= monthly instalments, with execution on default

Reasoning

Section 36(1)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act permits payment in lump sum or instalments, and Rule 27 empowers the court, where the decree-holder rejects the debtor's proposal, to hear competing proposals and order payment on just terms after considering the debtor's net income and assets and liabilities. The applicants filed an affidavit of means; although the respondent exposed discrepancies in the business records, the court found sufficient cause disclosed to exercise discretion, but fixed higher instalments than proposed to protect the decree-holder's rights.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Rule 27 of the Small Claims Court Rules, the burden rests on the judgment debtor to place sufficient evidence before the Court demonstrating inability to satisfy the decree in lump sum
  • Discrepancies in a debtor's affidavit of means do not necessarily displace evidence of income, family obligations and general financial circumstances; the court may order instalments on terms it considers just

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicants shall pay an initial sum of Kshs.70,000/= towards the decretal sum within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.The balance thereof shall be paid by monthly instalments of Kshs.30,000/= until payment in full commencing in the month of September 2026
  3. 3.In the event of default, execution to issue
  4. 4.No orders as to costs
  5. 5.Parties granted leave to appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MA
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 36(1)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act and Rule 27(1) and (2) of the Small Claims Court Rules

Relief refused

#

Applicants' proposed monthly instalment of Kshs.20,000/=

It would result in the decree being settled over an unduly prolonged period and would not sufficiently take into account the respondent's right to enjoy the fruits of the judgment

p. 4

Respondent's proposal for an initial payment of Kshs.100,000/= followed by monthly instalments of Kshs.40,000/=

The court adopted a middle figure of Kshs.30,000/= taking account of the applicants' demonstrated financial circumstances

p. 4

Costs

No orders as to costs

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 burden therefore rests upon the Applicants to place before the Court sufficient evidence demonstrating their inability to satisfy the decretal sum in lump sum.
p. 3burden of proof on instalment applications
I am accordingly satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause for the Court to exercise its discretion under Rule 27 of the Small Claims Court Rules and permit the decretal sum to be paid by instalments.
p. 4discretion to order instalments
a. The Applicants shall pay an initial sum of Kshs.70,000/= towards the decretal sum within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling. b. The balance thereof shall be paid by monthly instalments of Kshs.30,000/= until payment in full commencing in the month of September 2026.
p. 4final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The motion and the ruling are dated in 2026 (judgment 5th June, 2026; application 1st July, 2026; ruling 14th August, 2026), which appears to be a dating anomaly in the judgment as reproduced

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Progressive Credit Ltd v Wanjala & another (Commercial Case E2841 of 2025) [2026] SCC 212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 1st July, 2026 (decree in a concluded Small Claims suit, judgment delivered 5th June, 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/212/eng@2026-08-14

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