Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons arising from an appeal)

Akumu & 2 others v Onyona & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7235 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 October 2025
ADA.E. Dena
1,718 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Siaya court allowed a judgment debtor to pay a Kshs. 101,150 costs decree in monthly instalments, but only after an upfront goodwill payment of Kshs. 30,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, appellants and judgment debtors, filed a Chamber Summons seeking stay of execution of a decree for taxed costs of Kshs. 101,150/- awarded to the respondents, and leave to pay the sum by instalments of Kshs. 5,620/- per month over 18 months. The application was supported by affidavits of Jane Atieno Akumu and Bernard Otiep Akumu, who deponed that the applicants were of humble means, that the 3rd applicant supports dependants, and that his income was strained by recent family financial obligations. The respondents opposed, arguing that the 3rd applicant, a teacher with a stable income who had financed the case throughout, could pay in full and that an 18-month deferral would deny them the fruits of their judgment. The court identified the sole issue as whether sufficient cause had been shown for payment by instalments under Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Relying on Osir v Olima, Madi v Madi, Keshvaji Jethabhai v Saleh Abdulla, Freight Forwarders v Elsek & Elsek and Diamond Star General Forwarding v Rachier, the court held the discretion must be exercised judiciously, balancing creditor rights against debtor hardship. The payslip showing net income of about Kshs. 20,000/- evidenced hardship, but the court required an upfront goodwill payment of Kshs. 30,000/- (half the taxed instruction fees) within 30 days, with the balance payable at Kshs. 5,700/- monthly until payment in full; default would render the whole sum due and executable. Each party was to bear its own costs of the application.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Defendant has shown sufficient cause for payment of the amount decreed in instalments

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment debtors demonstrated sufficient cause to justify payment of the taxed costs by instalments under Order 21 Rule 12

Holding

Sufficient cause was shown: the applicants made bona fide efforts to settle, disclosed means through a payslip, and a reasonable instalment plan was feasible, subject to an upfront goodwill payment

Reasoning

The court applied the Keshvaji Jethabhai principles and the Freight Forwarders criteria: inability to pay in lump sum, capacity to pay reasonable monthly instalments, and utmost good faith. The applicants' efforts to negotiate were not specifically denied, and the payslip showed a net income of about Kshs. 20,000 with dependants. However, the court required an upfront fair proportion of Kshs. 30,000 (half the taxed instruction fees) and instalments of Kshs. 5,700, with default triggering full execution.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The power under Order 21 Rule 12 to order payment of a decree by instalments is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously, balancing the creditor's rights against the debtor's hardship
  • An applicant seeking payment by instalments must show bona fides by paying a fair proportion upfront and candidly disclose all means

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants shall pay Kshs. 30,000/- within 30 days of the ruling
  2. 2.The balance of the decretal sum shall be payable in instalments of Kshs. 5700/- per month until payment in full
  3. 3.Upon default of the first order the entire amount shall become due and payable and the respondents shall be at liberty to execute the decree
  4. 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the application

The bench

#

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

AD
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

The applicants' proposed payment plan of Kshs. 5,620/- per month over 18 months without any upfront payment

The court required a fair proportion paid upfront as a sign of goodwill before permitting instalments

p. 4

Costs

Each party to bear its own costs of the present application

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.

That the applicants shall pay Kshs. 30,000/- within 30 days of this ruling.
p. 4Final orders - upfront payment
That the balance of the decretal sum shall be payable in instalments of Kshs. 5700/- per month until payment in full.
p. 4Final orders - instalment plan
That upon default of 1 above the entire amount shall become due and payable and the respondents shall be at liberty to execute the decree.
p. 4Final orders - default clause
Let each party bear its own costs of the present application.
p. 4Costs
From the foregoing provisions the jurisdiction is discretionary. However, it is established that discretion must be exercised judiciously.
p. 3Nature of discretion under Order 21 Rule 12
Indeed the portion would go a long way in reducing the period for payment in instalments in addition to the goodwill.
p. 3Goodwill payment as prerequisite

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment refers to the applicant as 'Defendant' in framing the issue, although the parties are described as applicants/appellants and respondents/decree holders

minor

The supporting affidavit depones instalments of Kshs. 101,150/- per month for 18 months, which appears to conflate the decretal sum with the monthly instalment figure

minor

The document is described as both an application for stay of execution and a ruling; the heading references a Chamber Summons but the delivery states 'ruling' and the judgment is styled a judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Akumu & 2 others v Onyona & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7235 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons arising from an appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7235/eng@2025-10-23

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