Wambui v Wagika Holdings Limited; Kariuki & 2 others (Objector) (Cause 472 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 3697 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court rejected a 28-year debt payment plan as unreasonable and ordered the debtors to pay Kshs. 8 million upfront, with larger monthly instalments.
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 Objectors' application to lift the warrant of attachment and sale issued over L.R. Nakuru Municipality Block 5/98 should be granted
- 2.Whether the Objectors' proposed payment terms (deposit of Kshs. 750,000 and monthly instalments of Kshs. 30,000) are reasonable
Key legal issues
#Reasonableness of Objectors' proposed payment terms for the decretal sum
The proposed terms were rejected as unreasonable; the Court substituted its own terms of Kshs. 8,000,000 lump sum within 45 days and monthly instalments of Kshs. 250,000
The Court computed that after the proposed Kshs. 750,000 deposit, the balance of Kshs. 10,250,000 at Kshs. 30,000 monthly would take about 28 years to liquidate. Combined with the 2018 decree already 7 years old, the proposal would stretch payment to 35 years from the decree. The Court held this inconsistent with fair administration of justice and fashioned its own shorter schedule while preserving the injunction and prohibition orders and allowing reinstatement of warrants on default.
Legal principles established
#- A payment proposal that would stretch satisfaction of a decretal sum over decades is unreasonable and inconsistent with the fair administration of justice
Court orders
#- 1.The Objectors shall pay to the Claimant a lump sum of Kshs. 8,000,000 within 45 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.The balance to be liquidated in monthly instalments of Kshs. 250,000 beginning the first month after the lapse of 45 days
- 3.The orders of injunction and prohibition barring sale or other dealings with the attached property by any of the Parties shall remain in force
- 4.The Claimant may reapply for the warrants for attachment and sale of L.R. Nakuru Municipality Block 5/98 in default of any one payment
- 5.Mention on 17th March 2026
- 6.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over execution/attachment proceedings in Cause Number 472 of 2017
Relief refused
#Objectors' proposed payment schedule of Kshs. 750,000 lump sum plus Kshs. 30,000 monthly instalments
The schedule would take about 28 years to liquidate the balance and 35 years from the date of decree, which the Court held unreasonable and inconsistent with fair administration of justice; the Court instead imposed its own payment terms
Costs
No order on the costs.
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.
This proposal is not reasonable. It is not consistent with the principle of fair administration of justice.
The Objectors shall pay to the Claimant a lump sum of Kshs. 8,000,000 within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
The Claimant may reapply for the warrants for attachment and sale of L.R. Nakuru Municipality Block 5/98, in default of any one payment above.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the names of the Claimant or the 2nd Objector, and is styled a ruling on an application dated 7th July 2025 though delivered 19th December 2025; the court directs that findings in a ruling in Cause Number 473 of 2017 apply mutatis mutandis without restating them
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wambui v Wagika Holdings Limited; Kariuki & 2 others (Objector) (Cause 472 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 3697 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause Number 472 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3697/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.