Ponty Pridd Holdings Limited v Oduya (Appeal E050 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a company to pay a judgment debt in instalments, but only after paying Kshs. 400,000 upfront, warning that missing any payment triggers immediate execution.
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 granted stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 18th February 2025
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to pay the decretal sum by instalments
- 3.Whether the procedure invoked by the applicant rendered the application incompetent
Key legal issues
#Whether a judgment debtor unable to pay a decretal sum in a lump sum should be permitted to pay by instalments
Yes, but only on conditions demonstrating bona fides: prompt payment of a fair proportion of the debt (about half) followed by monthly instalments, with the whole balance falling due and execution issuing on default of any instalment.
The court adopted the four principles distilled from the two cited authorities: creditors' rights must be respected; mere inability to pay in full is insufficient; the debtor must show bona fides by prompt payment of a fair proportion; and hardship may justify indulgence only if it does not prejudice the creditor. The applicant offered no books of account to substantiate its claimed financial hardship and proposed instalments stretching over 16 months without a substantial upfront payment. The court therefore crafted conditional terms balancing the parties' interests.
Whether the application was incompetent for invoking the wrong procedure
No. Procedural objections must yield to the overriding objective of doing justice under Article 159 of the Constitution.
The respondent argued that the application was premised on wrong provisions of law and was incompetent. The court held that in exercising the discretionary relief sought, it must be conscious of Article 159 which eschews technicalities, and the respondent's procedural objections had to be weighed against the requirement to do justice without undue regard to technicalities. The court proceeded to determine the application on its merits rather than striking it out for the alleged procedural defect.
Whether the applicant's assertion of financial hardship justified indulgence
Not on the evidence offered. General assertions of economic hardship, unsupported by books of account or other proof, do not demonstrate sufficient reason.
The applicant attributed its inability to pay to a harsh economic environment and prevailing government directives but produced no books of account evidencing failing business or hardship. The court accepted that there may be a problem paying the full sum but found little evidential support for it. Following the cited precedent, a relative statement of tough economic hardship does not amount to sufficient reason to attract the court's discretion without more.
Legal principles established
#- The mere inability of a debtor to pay in full at once is not a sufficient reason for a court to exercise its discretion to allow payment by instalments; the debtor must show bona fides by arranging prompt payment of a fair proportion of the debt.
- A fair proportion of the decretal sum, approaching the halfway mark, should be paid promptly to demonstrate bona fides before instalment orders are granted, with execution lying on default.
- In exercising discretion on instalment payments, the court must be conscious of Article 159 of the Constitution and eschew technicalities, including objections to the procedure by which relief is sought.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellant is granted permission to pay the sum owed to the Respondent by way of instalments
- 2.Kshs. 400,000/- to be paid within 14 days
- 3.Kshs. 50,000/- at the end of each succeeding month till payment in full
- 4.In default of payment of any one instalment when due, the entire balance to become due and execution to issue for the balance unpaid at the point of default
- 5.Each party to meet their own costs for the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the court guided by Article 159 of the Constitution (justice without undue regard to technicalities)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment of 18th February 2025 as sought, on the terms proposed by the applicant
The applicant failed to demonstrate bona fides by arranging prompt payment of a fair proportion of the debt; the court instead granted conditional instalment payment terms with a default clause permitting execution
Leave to pay the decretal sum in instalments of Kshs. 50,000/- per month commencing 30th March 2025 as prayed
The proposed instalments alone would stretch repayment to 16 months without any substantial upfront payment, failing the requirement of showing bona fides
Costs
Each party to meet their own costs for the 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.
The mere inability to pay the sum in full at once is not a suficient reason for the exercise of the discretion.
The Court must, when exercising such discretion as that sought by the Appellant be conscious of Article 159 which eschews technicalities.
The final order is that the Appellant is granted permission to pay the sum owed to the Respondent by way of instalments as follows:
In default of payment of any one instalment when due, the entire balance to be come due and execution to issue for the balance unpaid at the point of default.
Each party to meet their own costs for the application before me.
Issues in the judgment
#The court's stated view on the fair proportion figure is internally inconsistent, first suggesting Kshs. 500,000/- then computing Kshs. 400,000/- as the ordered sum
The judgment uses the role labels 'Appellant/Applicant' and refers to a 'judgment delivered on the 18th February 2025' but does not identify the court or case number from which the appeal arises, nor the decretal sum precisely (described only as 'slightly over Kshs. 800,000/-')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ponty Pridd Holdings Limited v Oduya (Appeal E050 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1065/eng@2025-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.