Chief Executive Officer, Roads & Transport, County Government of Tharaka Nithi & another v Nkoroi & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8327 (KLR)
The bottom line
#You cannot seize county government property to enforce a court judgment in Kenya; decrees against government are enforced only through a specific statutory procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether execution against the County Government and its officers through attachment and sale of movable assets of the County Government is permitted under the law
Key legal issues
#Whether attachment and sale of County Government movable assets is a lawful mode of executing a decree
It is not; Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act protects the Government against execution or attachment, and the only mode of enforcing a monetary decree against the Government is through Section 21 procedure, i.e. mandamus against the Accounting Officer.
Section 21(4) provides that no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall issue out of a court for enforcing payment by the Government. The court adopted the reasoning in Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex-parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza, that decrees against Government are enforced only by mandamus compelling the accounting officer. Public assets serve public good and their attachment would disrupt public services. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to execute outside that framework.
Whether the appellants' failure to seek stay or furnish security barred the application
No; the application concerned the legality of the execution, not stay, and the security requirement under Order 42 rule 6(2) does not apply to the Government under Order 42 rule 8.
The court held the focus was the legality of the order of 16/9/2025, the warrants and the proclamation, not whether stay was deserved, and that no law bars a formal stay application. It further held the security requirement does not apply to the Government.
Legal principles established
#- Attachment and sale of a Government's movable assets is not a permitted mode of enforcing a monetary decree against the Government; satisfaction lies only through Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
- Government assets are protected from attachment because they are public assets whose disruption would affect public services.
- The requirement for security under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules does not apply to the Government by virtue of Order 42 rule 8.
Court orders
#- 1.The order issued by the Senior Principal Magistrate Court on 16/9/2025 granting the 1st respondent leave to execute against the appellants is set aside
- 2.The consequential warrants of attachment dated 30/9/2025 and the warrants of sale dated 30/9/2025 against the appellants are recalled and cancelled
- 3.The proclamation dated 1/10/2025 is vacated
- 4.Costs of the application shall be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Senior Principal Magistrate Court at Chuka
- Chuka CMC E & L Case No E180 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate/supervisory jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the magistrates' court; application arising in an appeal from Chuka CMC E & L Case No E180 of 2017
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 court finds that attachment of County Government assets as a way of enforcing a judgment/ award/decree/order against the County Government is not permitted under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
The court further finds that the leave granted to the 1st respondent on 16/9/2025; the warrants of attachment dated 30/9/2025; and the warrants of sale dated 30/9/2025 were all issued against the appellants contrary to the law and were issued in err
the consequential warrants of attachment dated 30/9/2025 and the warrants of sale dated 30/9/2025 against the appellants are hereby recalled and cancelled
The proclamation dated 1/10/2025 is vacated.
the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting oficer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment contains OCR errors, e.g. 'oficer', 'sufier', 'err' (for 'error'), 'abinitio', rendering verbatim quotes slightly corrupted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chief Executive Officer, Roads & Transport, County Government of Tharaka Nithi & another v Nkoroi & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8327 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 2/10/2025 (arising from appeal against Chuka CMC E & L Case No. E180 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8327/eng@2025-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.