Barasa (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate the Late Robert Wakhungu - Deceased) v Gamba aka William Gamsa Obed & another; Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Civil Case 116 of 2017) [2026] KEMC 549 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a judgment debtor to pay a Kshs 3.19 million decree in instalments, but only after a Kshs 1 million up-front deposit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment-debtor should be allowed to pay the decretal sum by monthly instalments under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The court allowed instalment payments but on conditions different from the Applicant's proposal, requiring an up-front deposit of Kshs. 1,000,000 within 30 days and instalments of Kshs. 150,000 thereafter, with execution to issue on default.
The court recognised its jurisdiction under Order 21 Rule 2 to order payment by instalments, exercisable judicially so as not to deprive the successful litigant of the fruits of judgment. Mere inability to pay is not sufficient cause; full and frank disclosure is required. However, because payment was to be made by the Applicant's insurer, the court held that this in essence waived those requirements. Balancing the parties' positions, the court required a substantial up-front deposit (about a third of the decree) followed by reasonable monthly instalments.
Whether the Applicant's proposed instalments of Kshs. 150,000 per month were acceptable.
The Applicant's proposal of Kshs. 150,000 per month from the outset was too low, but the same figure was accepted after a substantial initial deposit.
The court held that paying Kshs. 150,000 per month until payment in full would take more than two years, prejudicing a decree-holder whose matter had been in court since 2018. It agreed with the Respondent that higher payments were needed and therefore imposed an up-front deposit of roughly a third of the decretal sum before permitting the balance to be liquidated in instalments.
Who should bear the costs of the application.
Costs followed the event and were awarded to the Respondent as holder of the decree.
Relying on the principle that costs follow the event, the court held that the Respondent, as holder of the decree in issue, was entitled to the costs of the application in addition to previously assessed costs.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to allow payment of a decretal sum by instalments must be exercised judicially and upon established principles in a manner which does not deprive the successful litigant the fruits of his judgment.
- Mere inability to pay is not of itself sufficient cause; the judgment-debtor must make full and frank disclosure of financial circumstances and demonstrate genuine inability to satisfy the decree immediately.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant is allowed to liquidate the decretal sum by paying an initial deposit with the Respondent's counsel of Kshs. 1,000,000 within the next 30 days and thereafter pay monthly instalments of Kshs. 150,000 until payment in full.
- 2.In default of any one instalment, execution to issue.
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 21 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (discretion to order payment of decretal sum by instalments)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Barasa (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate the Late Robert Wakhungu - Deceased) v Gamba aka William Gamsa Obed & another; Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Civil Case 116 of 2017) [2026] KEMC 549 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/549/eng@2026-08-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.