Peter M Karanja Advocate v Sammy Traders Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E292 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 19077 (KLR) (17 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19077 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION E292 OF 2024 JM OMIDO, J NOVEMBER 17, 2025 BETWEEN PETER M KARANJA ADVOCATE ....................................................... APPLICANT AND SAMMY TRADERS LIMITED ........................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Respondent has moved the Court by a Notice of Motion dated 19th July, 2025 seeking leave to liquidate the decretal sum of Ksh.121,142.69/- (as at 30th October, 2025), being the balance of the amount certified as due to the Applicant/Advocate upon taxation, by 12 monthly instalments. 2. The application is premised on Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is supported by an affidavit in which the deponent avers that the Respondent is currently facing financial hardship and is unable to settle the entire sum at once. 3. The Applicant opposes the application, arguing that the Respondent has not demonstrated “sufficient cause” as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 12. Counsel submits that a bare assertion of financial constraints, unsupported by any documentary proof or detailed explanation, cannot justify the indulgence sought. He urges the Court to dismiss the application and allow him to recover the full outstanding amount at once. 4. I have considered the application, the response, the submissions by the parties and the applicable law. Order 21 Rule 12(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the Court to allow payment of a decree by instalments “for sufficient cause shown.” Jurisprudence is consistent that this discretion is judicial, not automatic, and is exercised on established criteria. Courts have held that relevant factors include: a. Whether the debtor has demonstrated genuine inability to pay the lump sum; b. Whether the debtor has made full and frank disclosure of his financial position; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19077/eng@2025-11-17 1
page 1 of 3
c. Whether the offer to pay is reasonable and made in good faith; d. The conduct of the debtor, including any history of delay or unwillingness; and e. Whether the creditor will suffer prejudice by delayed payment. 5. In the present case, the Respondent merely states that it is undergoing “financial hardship,” but provides no particulars of income, liabilities, unusual expenses or any supporting evidence such as bank statements or business records. The burden lies on the Respondentnt to show sufficient cause, and such cause must be more than a vague or general plea. 6. A party seeking indulgence must place before the Court material upon which the Court can properly exercise its discretion. The Respondent has not done so. 7. Further, the decretal sum is in my view modest and the debt arises from professional services rendered and already adjudicated through taxation. 8. The Applicant has waited through the taxation process and is entitled to the fruits of his judgment. Granting twelve monthly instalments, in the absence of persuasive evidence of hardship, would unfairly delay satisfaction of a lawfully due certificate of costs. 9. Nevertheless, the Court must balance the creditor’s rights with the principle that instalments may be allowed where some genuine difficulty is shown and where a shorter repayment period would not unduly prejudice the decree-holder. 10. Although the Respondent’s supporting evidence is inadequate, it has expressed willingness to pay; the debt is not disputed; and the Court is mindful of its discretion to avoid undue hardship while ensuring prompt satisfaction of decrees. 11. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that a twelve-month repayment period is justified. However, in the interests of justice, and in order to avoid driving the Respondent into unnecessary execution proceedings, I am inclined to grant limited indulgence, noting that the application for leave to liquidate the decretal amount by way of instalments was made four months ago. 12. The Respondent’s application to pay the decretal sum by instalments is therefore partially allowed. The Respondent is granted leave to liquidate the decretal amount in two (2) equal monthly instalments with the first instalment being paid within 7 days of the date of this ruling, and the second on or before the 24th of December, 2025. Interest shall continue accruing on the outstanding balance at 14% per annum on a reducing balance as the instalments are paid. 13. In default of any one instalment, the entire balance shall become immediately due and payable, and the Applicant shall be at liberty to execute for the full amount without further reference to the Court. 14. Costs of this application, assessed at Ksh2,500/- shall be borne by the Respondent and shall form part of the outstanding decretal amount. 15. This file is hereby closed. DELIVERED (VIRTUALLY), DATED & SIGNED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. JOE M. OMIDO JUDGE For Appellant: Ms. Barasa for Mr. Karanja. For Respondent: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19077/eng@2025-11-17 2
page 2 of 3
Court Assistant: Mr. Juma. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19077/eng@2025-11-17 3
page 3 of 3