Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 16th August 2023 (Judicial Review)· [2025] KEELC 8588 (KLR)

Raghbir v County Executive Committee Member (CEC) of The Ministry of Public Works, Road & Transport, County Government of Kajiado & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8588 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 December 2025
MMM.D. Mwangi
2,288 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant, Gujral Sandeep Singh Raghbir, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents, the County Government of Kajiado, to pay a decretal sum of Kshs. 10,000,000/-, taxed costs and interest awarded in his favour in ELC Case No. 11 of 2017 on 23rd January 2018, arising from the county's demolition of his perimeter wall and construction of a road on his plot (Title Number Noonkopir Trading Centre/195) without notice or lawful authority. The application, canvassed by written submissions, was unopposed despite service. The Court identified a single issue: whether the Applicant was entitled to mandamus and consequential reliefs. Relying on Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, the Court held that once a judgment against the Government becomes due and payable, the relevant accounting officer bears a mandatory statutory duty to satisfy the decree upon issuance and service of the certificate of order against the Government, and upon demand. Because Section 21(4) insulates Government property from execution and attachment, mandamus is the only lawful and effective enforcement mechanism for a decree holder against a Government entity. The Court found that the decree, certificate of taxation and demand had been duly served yet the Respondents refused or failed to pay, a failure that denies the Applicant the fruits of his judgment, offends judicial authority and amounts to contempt. Applying settled jurisprudence including Nassir Mwandihi, Fredrick Manoah Egunza, the Narok County case and the Achuti decision, the Court allowed the application in its entirety, issuing mandamus compelling payment within thirty days of service, with a Notice to Show Cause for contempt to issue in default, and awarded costs to the Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to mandamus to compel a county government to satisfy a decree

Holding

The application was allowed in its entirety; mandamus issued compelling payment of the decretal sum, taxed costs and interest, with a contempt notice to issue in default

Reasoning

The Court found that a valid judgment and decree of 23rd January 2018, together with the certificate of taxation, were served on the Respondents and a formal demand made as required by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. Despite this, the Respondents refused or failed to satisfy the decree. Section 21(4) bars ordinary execution against Government property, leaving mandamus as the only effective remedy. Continued non-payment offends constitutional values on respect for judicial authority and amounts to contempt. The application was unopposed.

p. 5
02

Statutory conditions precedent to enforcement under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act

Holding

Issuance and service of the certificate of order against the Government and a demand for payment are conditions precedent to mandamus

Reasoning

Relying on Nassir Mwandihi and Fredrick Manoah Egunza, the Court restated that before mandamus is issued there must be proof of compliance with the Government Proceedings Act - issuance of the certificate of order against the Government and, where applicable, the certificate of costs, both served on the Attorney-General, followed by a demand for payment and refusal. On the facts, these steps were undertaken by the Applicant, establishing the clear statutory duty whose breach justified mandamus.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a judgment against the Government becomes due and payable, Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act imposes a mandatory statutory duty upon the relevant accounting officer to satisfy the decree
  • Where the accounting officer fails to perform the statutory duty to pay, mandamus is the only effective means of enforcing a monetary decree against a government entity, Section 21(4) barring ordinary execution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A Judicial Review Order of Mandamus directed at the Respondents compelling them forthwith to pay in full the decretal sum of Kshs. 10,000,000/= as per the Judgment/Decree issued on 23rd January 2018 in ELC Case No. 11 of 2017
  2. 2.A Judicial Review Order of Mandamus directed at the Respondents compelling them forthwith to pay the taxed costs together with interest thereon due on account of the Certificate of Taxation issued pursuant to the decree
  3. 3.The Respondents ordered to comply by satisfying the Decree, the taxed costs and accrued interest within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the Order
  4. 4.In default of compliance, a Notice to Show Cause shall issue requiring the Respondents to personally appear to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court
  5. 5.Costs of the Application awarded to the Ex-parte Applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Government Proceedings ActSection 21(1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 2(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Republic vs Permanent Secretary, Office of The President Ministry of Internal Security & Another ex parte Nassir Mwandihi
    [2014] eKLR
  • Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza
    [2012] eKLR
  • Republic v County Executive Committee Member, Finance & Economic Affairs Narok County Government & 2 others; Tom Ojienda & Associates (Ex parte)
    [2024] KEHC 11393 (KLR)
  • Republic v County Government of Nairobi & Another; Achuti & Another (Ex parte)
    [2025] KEHC 9324
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction to issue an order of mandamus enforcing Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act against a county government

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Raghbir v County Executive Committee Member (CEC) of The Ministry of Public Works, Road & Transport, County Government of Kajiado & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8588 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 16th August 2023 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8588/eng@2025-12-04

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