Justice John Anuro rejected an 18-year repayment proposal, faulting Bevraj for resisting execution and failing to prove financial hardship. The company has until 2028 to clear its debt, with a single missed instalment exposing it to renewed enforcement.
The High Court has ordered Bevraj Furniture Limited to pay Gulf African Bank KSh800,000 monthly towards an outstanding KSh21.65 million debt.
Bevraj Furniture, located in Nairobi, specialises in offering curated collections of premium home and office furniture.
In a ruling delivered in early October, 2026, the judge granted Bevraj a final opportunity to settle its obligations.
The company must pay 25 monthly instalments of KSh800,000, followed by a final payment of KSh648,603.
Payments begin on October 30, 2026, and must continue by each month’s final day.
However, the reprieve comes with a strict condition: missing even one instalment will allow the bank to resume execution.
The ruling followed years of wrangling over a settlement intended to resolve the parties’ dispute.
On July 4, 2023, the court adopted a consent judgement recognising Bevraj’s debt at KSh166,648,603.
The parties agreed that the company would sell its charged property privately for KSh145 million towards repayment.
They converted the remaining KSh1,648,603 into an interest-free Qard facility, payable by July 31, 2024.
The arrangement gave Bevraj time to sell the property while providing the bank with a structured recovery plan.
But the settlement eventually unravelled, leaving KSh21,648,603 outstanding and the bank pursuing enforcement.
Disputed Sale
Gulf African Bank accused Bevraj of misleading it about the property’s actual sale price.
In a replying affidavit, senior legal manager Lawi Sato alleged the property sold for KSh215 million, not KSh145 million.
The bank claimed it consequently surrendered KSh62,074,123.44 and contractual profits calculated at 14 per cent annually.
According to the bank, those concessions depended on Bevraj paying the outstanding balance by July 31, 2024.
Sato also alleged that Bevraj received KSh10 million from the purchaser but never remitted it.
These were allegations presented by the bank, not independent findings of fraud in the October ruling.
Bevraj offered a different explanation for its default, blaming the purchaser’s failure to pay KSh60 million within one year.
The company argued that this failure undermined its ability to meet the agreed settlement.
It also promised to increase payments after recovering money in separate court proceedings.
The bank dismissed that prospect as uncertain, arguing that another case could not justify indefinite delays.
It further accused Bevraj of frustrating execution through unsuccessful applications challenging enforcement.
Missing Evidence
Justice Anuro examined whether Bevraj had demonstrated sufficient cause for paying the judgement debt in instalments.
Under Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, courts may allow instalments where sufficient cause exists.
However, the judge stressed that financial hardship alone does not automatically justify delayed payment.
Citing A. Rajabali Alidina v Remtulla Alidina, he identified four considerations governing such applications.
These include how the debt arose, the debtor’s conduct, its financial position and its willingness to pay upfront.
The judge also relied on Keshavji Jethabhai & Bros Limited v Saleh Abdulla, emphasising the debtor’s burden of proof.
Bevraj claimed its business had declined, its physical offices had closed and it continued selling online.
But the company supplied no financial statements, bank statements or management accounts supporting those assertions.
The judge found the claims incapable of independent verification, weakening the company’s plea for more time.
He also criticised Bevraj for failing to approach the bank with a repayment proposal before execution began.
Instead, the company pursued unsuccessful applications challenging enforcement, including an attempt to secure an injunction pending appeal.
Justice Anuro said the latest application bore the hallmarks of a debtor “jolted to action” by imminent execution.
The court also noted that Bevraj’s KSh1 million deposit followed a judicial order rather than a voluntary offer.
That payment therefore failed to demonstrate the level of good faith the court expected.
The proposed KSh100,000 monthly payments would have kept the bank waiting another 18 years.
The judge found that delay would cause real and continuing prejudice to a creditor already denied payment.
Costly Reprieve
Despite his criticism, Justice Anuro granted limited relief “strictly in the interest of justice”.
He gave Bevraj the benefit of doubt but replaced its proposal with a substantially shorter repayment schedule.
The company must clear the outstanding balance through 26 instalments, beginning later this month.
The court’s stay of execution will remain effective only while Bevraj meets every payment deadline.
If the company defaults on any instalment, the protection automatically lapses and Gulf African Bank may resume execution.
READ ALSO: Kenya Power Ordered to Pay Kisumu Man KSh22.3 Million After Decades-Long Trespass
Bevraj must also pay the costs of its application.
The ruling sends a clear message to borrowers seeking additional time after a court judgement.
Courts may accommodate genuine financial difficulties, but debtors must provide evidence and propose realistic repayment terms.
For Bevraj, the immediate challenge is no longer securing more time but honouring the agreement.
One missed payment could reopen the door to enforcement, ending the company’s carefully negotiated reprieve.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
