Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Anyour & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E046 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 209 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 and he has complied with the procedure necessary to apply for orders of mandamus
- 2.Whether the Ex parte Applicant complied with the elaborate procedure under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus lies to compel the Accounting Officer to satisfy a decree for costs against a government agency
Yes, where the judgment creditor has complied with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, obtained a certificate of order against the Government and served it, mandamus issues to compel payment.
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's exposition of the scope of mandamus and prior decisions holding that decrees for money against the Government can only be enforced by mandamus directed at the accounting officer, since Government property is immune from execution under section 21(4). Compliance with section 21(1), (2) and (3) - certificate of order served on the Attorney General - plus a demand and refusal, gives rise to the remedy.
Whether the Ex parte Applicant satisfied the section 21 procedure
Yes. The court found it undisputed that the applicant obtained a valid decree, a certificate of order against the Government and served it on the respondents, as evidenced by the affidavit of service.
The applicant obtained the certificate of order against the 2nd respondent and served the ruling of 11th December 2024 and order of 8th January 2025; service was proved by the affidavit of Winnie Awuor Paul sworn 28th July 2025. No appeal or stay had issued. The section 21 procedure, though elaborate, is meant to give notice to the Government, not to relieve it of its obligations.
Legal principles established
#- A mandamus order compels the execution of a public duty imposed by statute where the duty-bearer has neglected to perform it, prejudicing a party with a legal entitlement to its performance.
- A cause of action for mandamus against the Government accrues only after compliance with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and a demand for payment.
- The principles of justice and finality require that valid court orders be honoured and parties comply with a lawful decree.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 7th July 2025 is merited and is allowed
- 2.An order of mandamus compelling the respondents to pay the decretal sum of Kshs. 50,000/= awarded in Nairobi ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E168 of 2024
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/ELC under the law of mandamus; order of mandamus in respect of costs awarded in Nairobi ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E168 of 2024
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.
I find that the notice of motion dated 7th July 2025 is merited and is allowed. It is so ordered!
The principles of justice and finality require that valid court orders be honoured and parties are required to comply with a lawful decree.
It is only after the procedure as laid down under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act has been complied with and a demand for payment made that a cause of action accrues for the purposes of an application for an order of mandamus against the Government.
This provision does not condition payment to budgetary allocation and parliamentary approval of Government expenditure in the financial year subsequent to which Government liability accrues.
Issues in the judgment
#The 2nd respondent's name/capacity is inconsistently stated - the notice of motion refers to 'the 2nd respondents' being 'a government agency' while the underlying suit names the National Irrigation Authority as respondent.
The 1st respondent is described only as 'the Accounting Oficer' without the name of the office or ministry being specified in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Anyour & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E046 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review application arising from Nairobi ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E168 of 2024 (Peter Anyuor Mangira (Deceased) v National Irrigation Authority). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/209/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.