Wangalwa v County Assemblies Forum (CAF) & 2 others; Kcb Bank Ltd (Garnishee) (Petition E069 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2075 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court allowed a judgment debtor to pay a decretal sum in four monthly instalments, but missed payments mean 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 court is functus officio having rendered judgment and issued a decree
- 2.Whether the Judgment Debtor has provided sufficient reasons to defray the decretal sum by way of monthly instalments
- 3.Whether a stay of execution of the decree should be granted pending payment of the decretal sum in instalments
- 4.Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Key legal issues
#Whether the court was functus officio
The court was not functus officio; determining instalment payment and stay is incidental to perfecting the decree, not merit-based re-engagement.
The Judgment Debtor invoked the doctrine as articulated in Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda, which bars only merit-based decisional re-engagement after final judgment and decree. An application under Order 21 Rule 12 for payment in instalments does not reopen the merits but ensures the order is perfected, so the court retains jurisdiction.
Whether sufficient reason existed to allow payment of the decretal sum in instalments
Yes - the court found the proposal to pay in 4 equal instalments reasonable, notwithstanding the Decree Holder's objections that no evidence of hardship was given and that the proposal was not made in good faith.
The Judgment Debtor stated it had not refused to pay but was constrained financially, awaiting subscriptions from county assemblies, and was prepared to settle in four instalments. The court found this reasonable in the circumstances, though it adjusted the commencement date to end of July 2025 and tied the stay to performance.
Whether a stay of execution should be granted
Stay granted conditionally, with default provision allowing execution if any instalment is missed.
To avoid further miscarriage of justice, the court granted the stay on condition of payment in four equal instalments from end of July 2025, with execution to proceed in default of any one instalment.
Legal principles established
#- The functus officio doctrine does not bar a court from engaging with matters incidental to perfecting its own decree, such as an application for payment by instalments under Order 21 Rule 12
- A judgment debtor seeking payment by instalments must demonstrate bona fides and sufficient reason; mere inability to pay in a lump sum is not enough
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the decree issued on 29th November 2024 granted on condition that the Judgment Debtor settles the decretal sum in 4 equal instalments with effect from the end of July 2025 and at the end of each subsequent month until payment in full
- 2.In default of any one instalment, execution may proceed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (postponement of payment / payment of decretal sum in instalments); inherent jurisdiction to ensure its decree is perfected
Relief refused
#Instalment payments commencing February 2025 as proposed by the Judgment Debtor
The court varied the commencement of the instalments to the end of July 2025 rather than February 2025 as sought, attaching default consequences
Costs
No costs order appears in the final orders; the Judgment Debtor had sought that costs of the application be provided for, but the court made no costs order.
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.
In order to avoid any further miscarriage of justice, I will allow the stay order on condition that the applicants settle the decretal sum in 4 equal instalments with effect from end of July 2025 and at end of each subsequent month until payment in full.
In default of any one instalment, execution may proceed.
The proceedings which this court has been called upon to undertake is incidental to its decision to ensure that its order is perfected but it is not geared towards re-trying the cause or touch on the merit of the court's determination to warrant this court to down its tools.
mere inability to pay in full at once is not sufficient reason for exercising discretion, the debtor should show bona fides by arranging prompt payment and that hardship may be a factor.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains an apparently misplaced paragraph in the Judgment Debtor's submissions concerning a disciplinary hearing and termination that relates to the underlying suit, not the instalment/stay application.
The parties cite conflicting dates for the underlying judgment's effect on delay; the Decree Holder asserted the Judgment Debtor made no attempt to settle for almost one year, while the parties' own recitals show a decree issued 29th November 2024 and the application filed 4th February 2025 (about seven weeks after demand).
The case number and the names of the parties are not stated anywhere in the judgment as provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wangalwa v County Assemblies Forum (CAF) & 2 others; Kcb Bank Ltd (Garnishee) (Petition E069 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2075 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2075/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.