Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Nyaoke (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E052 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 170 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered the National Irrigation Authority to pay a court award after confirming the proper demand procedure against the Government had been followed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Ex parte applicant's notice of motion application dated 7th July 2025 is merited
- 2.Whether the applicant complied with the procedure necessary to apply for orders of mandamus, specifically the requirements of section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant complied with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act as a precondition to mandamus
The court found the applicant fully satisfied section 21, having obtained a valid decree, certificate of order against the Government and served it, with a demand made by email to the 1st respondent and respondents' advocates, uncontroverted by any contrary evidence
The applicant annexed the certificate of order (PAN 3) and an email dated 9th June 2025 to the 1st respondent and the respondents' advocates' address, showing a forwarding letter, certificate of order, ruling and order, plus a demand letter to the 1st respondent as CEO. The respondents did not controvert service, and there was no appeal, stay or review against the original judgment.
Whether mandamus can issue to compel the accounting officer to pay a decretal sum against a government entity
Yes; where a decree holder complies with section 21 and the Government fails to pay, mandamus lies against the accounting officer, unconditioned by budgetary approval
The court relied on the established principles from Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge, Republic v AG ex parte James Alfred Koroso, Nassir Mwandihi and the Provincial Administration case, holding that the Government's immunity from execution under section 21(4) leaves mandamus against the accounting officer as the only enforcement route, and that payment is not conditioned on budgetary allocation.
Legal principles established
#- A mandamus to compel payment of a decree against the Government lies only after the elaborate procedure in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act is complied with and a demand for payment is made and refused
- Payment of decrees against the Government under section 21(3) is not conditioned on budgetary allocation or parliamentary approval
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 7th July 2025 seeking an order of mandamus is allowed
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court over an application for an order of mandamus to enforce a decree against the Government under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
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.
Anchoring on the submissions as above, I find find that the notice of motion date 7th July 2025 is merited and is allowed.
Costs of this Application to be borne by the Respondents.
The principles of justice and finality require that valid court orders be honoured and parties are required to comply with a lawful decree.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in applicant's submissions - paragraph 7 states she 'reiterated the averments as laid out in the grounds of opposition', which are the respondents' pleading
Case name duplicated with inconsistent citation - the 2012 Provincial Administration case is cited again at paragraph 18 as '& Another ex-parte Nassir Mwandihi [2014] eKLR'
Apparent typographical error in case name 'Parte Yaya Towers Limited'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Lago v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3911 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3911 (KLR)18 Jun 2026
- Akura v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E006 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3910 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3910 (KLR)18 Jun 2026
- Ngoje v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3877 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3877 (KLR)18 Jun 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Nyaoke (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E052 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 170 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 7th July 2025 (Ex parte Applicant Pamella Nyaoke). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/170/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.