Mugendi Karigi & Co. Advocates v Doric Industries Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court let a company pay a Ksh 5.7 million legal fees debt in installments, but on stricter terms than it asked for because it had paid nothing so far.
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 Applicant should be allowed to pay the decretal amount by installments as proposed
Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment debtor should be permitted to satisfy the decretal sum by installments
The application was allowed on terms set by the court: a 20% lump sum payment followed by quarterly installments of ksh 500,000/=, with liberty to execute on default
The court applied Order 21 Rule 12 and the principles in Botanics Kenya Ltd, Freight Forwarders Ltd and Keshvaji Jethabhai & Bros. It weighed the debtor's hardship against the decree holder's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment. The Applicant's failure to make any payment since taxation and its rejection of the Advocate's compromise proposal meant it had not shown the bona fides required, so the court crafted its own balancing terms rather than granting the Applicant's proposal.
Legal principles established
#- The court has discretion to allow payment of a decree by installments where sufficient cause is shown, to be exercised judicially and in the interest of justice
- The burden lies on the applicant to justify the court's exercise of discretion in its favour when seeking installment payments
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/Applicant to pay 20% of the decretal amount to the Advocate/Decree Holder by 31st August, 2023
- 2.The balance to be paid in equal installments of ksh 500,000/= after every three months, the first installment due on or before 30th November, 2023, and thereafter on or before the last day of every third month until payment in full
- 3.In case of default, the decree holder to be at liberty to execute without any further reference to the court
- 4.The costs of the application to be borne by the Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Order 21 Rule 12(2) and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Payment of the decretal sum of ksh 5,735,020.76 on the Applicant's proposed terms (ksh 500,000/= by end of July 2023, then ksh 300,000/= quarterly)
The Applicant made no payments since taxation and did not demonstrate bona fides by paying a fair proportion at once; the court imposed its own terms instead
Costs
The costs of this Application be borne by the Applicant.
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.
It is incumbent upon the Applicant to show sucient cause in order to benet from the discretion of this court.
Whilst the court considers the hardship of the debtor as a factor in making its determination it is also bound to weigh the same against interests of the decree holder who hold a lawful decree of this court in his hands and is entitled to the fruits of his judgment.
That the Client/Applicant to pay 20% of the decretal amount to the Advocate/Decree Holder by 31st August, 2023.
In case of default, the decree holder will be at liberty to execute without any further reference to this court.
Issues in the judgment
#Duplicate paragraph number 14 in the judgment
Amount typo in the proposed installment: 'ksh 300,00/='
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugendi Karigi & Co. Advocates v Doric Industries Limited", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Application E057 of 2021 (Civil Case No. 507 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/19186/eng@2023-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.