Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateOtherNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEMC 317 (KLR)

Kaloki & 2 others (Suing as the Administrators and/or Personal Representatives of the Estate of Lucia Munyiva Kaloki - Deceased) v Omido & 2 others (Civil Case E113 of 2022) [2025] KEMC 317 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court at Makindu
16 December 2025
YSY.A. Shikanda
1,236 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that decree holders should provide their KRA PIN when requested for payment, though courts cannot force anyone to accept money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Senior Principal Magistrate at Makindu determined an application dated 25/9/2025 filed by the defendants/judgment debtors seeking orders compelling the plaintiff's Advocates to provide their KRA PIN and any other documents necessary to enable the defendants' insurer, a Government agency, to effect payment of the decretal sum through IFMIS. The plaintiff's counsel, who swore the replying affidavit herself, opposed the application, arguing that no services had been rendered to the defendants or their insurer, that the request was not made in good faith, and that the insurer intended to deduct VAT or withhold tax, contrary to the Tax Procedures Act, so that the entire decretal sum would not be paid. Framing the sole issue as whether the court can compel counsel for the plaintiff to provide the KRA PIN for purposes of payment, the court found the plaintiff's allegations of an intention to withhold tax or charge VAT speculative and unsupported by evidence. Following two comparable authorities, the court held that a KRA PIN is essentially an identifier and that a request for it to process payment is reasonable. However, the court declined to expressly compel counsel to provide the PIN, holding that a court cannot compel a decree holder to receive payment. It directed that if counsel elects to provide the KRA PIN she should do so within 14 days; failing that, the defendants shall deposit the decretal sum in court within a further 14 days. Execution against the defendants was barred in the interim. The court censured the parties for litigating a matter capable of amicable resolution.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court can compel counsel for the plaintiff to provide her KRA PIN to enable the defendants' insurer to process payment of the decretal sum

Holding

The court cannot expressly compel counsel to provide the KRA PIN, but the request is reasonable; counsel's withholding of the information was unreasonable, and if she wishes to be paid she should provide it within 14 days, failing which the defendants must deposit the decretal sum in court.

Reasoning

The court found the defendants' insurer is a Government agency requiring payee details, including the KRA PIN, through IFMIS to process payment. The plaintiff's counsel's claim that the PIN was sought to withhold tax or charge VAT was speculative, unsupported by evidence. Two comparable authorities allowed similar applications. While a decree holder cannot be compelled to receive payment, refusing to supply an identifier out of fear of the unknown was unreasonable; a practical direction with a default deposit mechanism was fashioned.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A request for a KRA PIN for purposes of processing payment is reasonable; a KRA PIN is an identifier and a demand for it does not of itself imply an intention to withhold tax or charge VAT.
  • A court cannot compel a decree holder to receive payment of the decretal sum.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.In the event counsel elects to provide the KRA PIN, she should do so within 14 days from the date of judgment
  2. 2.If counsel fails to provide the KRA PIN within the stipulated period, the defendants shall deposit the decretal sum in court within 14 days from expiry of the period granted to the plaintiffs
  3. 3.No execution proceedings shall be carried out against the defendants until after expiry of the stated period and upon default by the defendants to deposit the decretal sum in court
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over its own decree (application in a suit for payment of decretal sum)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaloki & 2 others (Suing as the Administrators and/or Personal Representatives of the Estate of Lucia Munyiva Kaloki - Deceased) v Omido & 2 others (Civil Case E113 of 2022) [2025] KEMC 317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/317/eng@2025-12-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.