SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Ndivo v Yes Sacco Society Ltd; Airtel Kenya Limited (Objector) (Tribunal Case 246 of 2019) [2026] KECOPT 72 (KLR) (11 February 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KECOPT 72 (KLR) Copyright Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Copyright Tribunal
Case number
72
Citation
[2026] KECOPT 72 (KLR)
Decided
11 February 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudgmentPostureAppeal from a lower court judgmentCoramHON. J. MWATSAMA, HON. BEATRICE SAWE, HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA, HON. PHILIP GICHUKI, HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW, HON. P. AOL
Holding

The interim order for stay of execution is granted, and the claimant is ordered to pay a lump-sum of Kshs. 500,000/= and then liquidate the balance through monthly payments.

Facts

The claimant, Ndivo, is a debtor facing a judgment debt of KES 1,533,615/=. The respondent, Yes Sacco Society Ltd, is the judgment debtor. The objector, Airtel Kenya Limited, sought to enforce the judgment.

Issues

  1. The validity of the interim order for stay of execution of the judgment debt
  2. The propriety of the installment payment plan proposed by the claimant
  3. The enforceability of the warrants of attachment of the objector's movable properties

Reasoning

The court found that the claimant faces substantial and imminent harm if the execution proceeds, and that immediate judicial intervention is necessary to preserve the operational viability of the claimant.

Outcome

The appeal is upheld.

Orders

  • Interim order for stay of execution of the judgment debt
  • Order for the claimant to pay a lump-sum of Kshs. 500,000/=
  • Order for the claimant to liquidate the balance through monthly payments
  • Lifting of the warrants of attachment of the objector's movable properties

Remedies

  • Stay of execution of the judgment debt
  • Lump-sum payment
  • Monthly payments
  • Lifting of attachment warrants
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case