Chogo v Kamongo Waste Paper Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E103 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1186 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court allowed an employer facing auction of its vehicles to pay a judgment debt in three monthly instalments, but rejected its request for six.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether to grant stay of execution and if so on what conditions
- 2.Whether the Applicant can settle the decretal sum in 6 installments
- 3.Whether the Respondent can proceed to tax a bill of costs post execution
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution should be granted and on what conditions
Limited stay of execution granted on condition the Applicant pays the decretal sum in 3 equal monthly instalments commencing 30th May 2025; in default execution to issue
The Court found that the Applicant, though alleging financial hardship caused by the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic, had not demonstrated those financial difficulties nor indicated how much it was willing to pay. Guided by the Rajabali Alidina test, the Court held none of the grounds had been demonstrated, but nonetheless exercised its discretion in favour of a limited stay with payment in 3 instalments rather than the 6 sought, with execution to issue on default.
Whether the Applicant should be allowed to settle the decretal sum in 6 instalments
Refused; instalments granted but in 3, not 6, equal instalments
The Applicant relied on RWW v EKW on substantial loss and proportionality, arguing that attachment of its essential business motor vehicles would shut down operations. The Petitioner countered that the Applicant had not met the prerequisites for stay, that the application was filed 111 days after judgment, and that instalment applications are governed by the Rajabali Alidina test. The Court found the Applicant had not demonstrated the Rajabali Alidina grounds but granted a reduced instalment plan in the exercise of discretion.
Legal principles established
#- In determining an application to pay a decretal sum by instalments the court considers the circumstances under which the debt was contracted, the conduct of the debtor, his financial position and his bona fides in offering to pay a fair proportion of the debt at once
- Execution is a lawful process and does not by itself amount to substantial loss; the applicant must show the execution will irreparably affect the essential core of its position
Court orders
#- 1.Limited stay of execution granted
- 2.Applicant directed to pay the decretal sum in 3 equal instalments with effect from 30th May 2025 and every 30th of each succeeding month until payment in full
- 3.In default of payment, execution to issue
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 48 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya; Rule 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Order 21 Rule 12, Order 22 Rule 22 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment of 11th October 2024 and the consequential decree as sought (unconditional/pending hearing inter partes)
The Court granted only a limited stay conditional on payment by instalments rather than the stay sought pending negotiation of a payment plan
Payment of the decretal sum in 6 equal monthly instalments as proposed by the Applicant
The Applicant did not demonstrate the financial difficulties it alleged nor indicate how much it was willing to pay
Costs
No costs order stated in the judgment
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 will however exercise my discretion and allow limited stay of execution and direct that the applicant pays the decretal sum in 3 equal instalments with efiect from the 30th of May 2025 and every 30th of each succeeding month until payment in full. In default execution to issue.
The main issue for determination by this Court is whether to grant stay of execution and if so on what conditions.
In determining the application, I note that the applicant have not in any way demonstrated the financial dificulties they are facing. They have also not indicated how much they are willing to pay.
In Rajabali Alidina vs Remtulla Alidina & Another (1961) EA 565 set out what should be considered in determining whether or not to grant the prayers sought.
the fact that the process of execution has been put in motion, or is likely to be put in motion, by itself, does not amount to substantial loss.
Issues in the judgment
#Case file/number and title of the underlying petition are not stated in the judgment text
Prayer 3 as drafted misdescribes the parties ('grant the Respondent an opportunity to negogiate a payment plan with the Respondent')
No costs order is made in the disposition despite prayer 4 seeking costs
Discrepancy in the decretal figures: the judgment ordered Kshs. 932,349 but the Petitioner seeks deposit of Kshs. 1,552,346 inclusive of interest, costs and auctioneers' charges which remain untaxed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chogo v Kamongo Waste Paper Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E103 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1186 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1186/eng@2025-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.