Karanja (Being administrator of the Estate of Tiras Karanja Gatha - Deceased) v (Deceased & another (Environment and Land Case 722 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4092 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused a judgment-debtor permission to pay in instalments, finding her inconsistent offers and years of delay were tactics to avoid paying.
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 Plaintiff is entitled to leave to settle the decretal sum by instalments
- 2.Whether the Notification of Sale issued by the 1st Defendant's auctioneers demanding payment of Kshs. 20,000,000/= is lawful
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to pay the decretal sum by instalments should be granted
Leave refused; the applicant abandoned the instalment prayer and advanced an inconsistent lump-sum proposal, showing lack of candour and delay in complying with the Court's orders.
The Court noted that the applicant sought instalments in the motion but proposed payment of Kshs. 400,000/= immediately plus the balance within fourteen days in submissions, and on 15th December 2025 her counsel sought leave to deposit the entire decretal sum. The Court held the shifting proposals made it unclear what she sought to pay, found her not candid and in delay, and concluded she was attempting to obstruct the decree-holder from enjoying the fruits of a judgment dating back to 2012.
Whether the Notification of Sale demanding Kshs. 20,000,000/= was unlawful
The point was not resolved in the applicant's favour because the entire application was dismissed as unmerited; the Court confirmed that the 2022 Ruling had adopted the Kiambu County Government valuation and that the plaintiff was yet to comply with the 2014 order.
The Court perused the Ruling of 13th October 2022 adopting the Kiambu County Government valuation of the 0.5-acre portion at Kshs. 6,000,000/=, and the Ruling of 4th June 2014 which directed subdivision and transfer of 0.5 acres or payment of its value. It observed the plaintiff had not adhered to those orders, undermining her attempt to restrain execution.
Legal principles established
#- A judgment-debtor who makes inconsistent settlement proposals and delays compliance cannot use the Court's process to block a decree-holder from enjoying the fruits of judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated 17th March 2025 as unmerited
- 2.No order as to costs (the judgment is silent on costs)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction; applicant invoked the Court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process under Order 21 Rule 12(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to settle the decretal sum by instalments (and later by lump-sum payment of Kshs. 400,000/= plus balance within 14 days)
The Plaintiff made inconsistent proposals, was not candid, and had delayed in complying with the Court's orders while seeking to block the 1st Defendant from enjoying the fruits of judgment
Declaration that the notification of sale by the 1st Defendant's agent was unlawful for indicating the due amount as Kshs. 20,000,000/=
The entire application was found unmerited and dismissed
Costs
The judgment makes no express costs order; the application's prayer for costs was not addressed.
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.
I have considered the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective affidavits and rivalling submissions and the only issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to settle the decretal sum by instalments and if the Notification of Sale issued by the 1st Defendant's auctioneers demanding payment of Kshs. 20,000,000/= is lawful.
It is my considered view that the Plaintiff is not candid and has delayed in complying with the Orders of this Court and she now seeks to block the 1st Defendant from enjoying the fruits of the judgement.
In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will dismiss it.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment recites that counsel sought leave on 15th December 2025 in a judgment dated 1st July 2026, and the plaintiff also filed a notice of motion dated 17th March 2025 referencing the notification of sale served on 14th March 2025; the internal chronology is unusual and should be verified against the official record.
The opening line misdescribes the nature of the proceedings, referring to the dispute as an appeal although the matter is a first-instance application in an ongoing suit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja (Being administrator of the Estate of Tiras Karanja Gatha - Deceased) v (Deceased & another (Environment and Land Case 722 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4092 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4092/eng@2026-07-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.