Anam & another v Chief Executive Officer & Accounting Officer, National Land Commission & another (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 243 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Migori ordered the National Land Commission to pay Kshs. 200,000 with interest after the applicants followed the correct legal process.
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 applicants are entitled to an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the decretal sum owed to the applicants
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants satisfied the statutory prerequisites in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act for an order of mandamus to enforce a money decree against the Government
Yes - judgment, certificate of order, decree, certificate of costs, notice of intention to sue and affidavits of service were all proved and uncontroverted, entitling the applicants to mandamus
The court restated that execution against the Government is barred by section 21(4) and that the only route is mandamus compelling the accounting officer to pay under section 21(3). Following Odunga J's formulation, the applicant must show a judgment, a certificate of order and certificate of costs duly issued and served, and a demand. The applicants annexed the judgment dated 18th February 2025, certificate of order dated 29th April 2025, certificate of costs dated 21st May 2025, a notice of intention to sue dated 15th July 2025 and affidavits of service, and the respondents filed no replying affidavit to controvert the evidence. Mandamus issued.
Legal principles established
#- Enforcement of money decrees against the Government is by mandamus against the accounting officer, conditioned on compliance with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act (certificate of order, certificate of costs and demand for payment)
- A government department cannot escape satisfaction of a decree merely because it is the Government that owes the debt
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Mandamus issued compelling the National Land Commission to pay the applicants the decretal sum of Kshs. 200,000/= from the date ordered in the certificate, with interest thereon, until payment in full in accordance with the decree and certificate of order against the National Land Commission
- 2.The applicants shall have the costs of these proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under the Fair Administrative Action Act; Government Proceedings Act, section 21
Relief refused
#Personal liability of the chief executive officer / accounting officer of the National Land Commission
Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act prohibits individual liability; mandamus directed at the Commission as certificate holder
Costs
The applicant shall have the costs of these proceedings.
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.
Accordingly, this court allows the application in the following terms: An order of Mandamus is hereby issued compelling the National Land Commission to pay the applicants the decretal sum of Kshs. 200,000/= from the date ordered in the certificate, and the interest thereon
The applicant shall have the costs of these proceedings.
This court is satisfied that the Applicants have met the requirements set out in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
The sum has to be satisfied irrespective of the fact that it is government that owes it.
the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property/goods under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act
Issues in the judgment
#The applicants describe the decree as Ksh. 200,000/= but the underlying petition is stated to have awarded Ksh. 100,000/= nominal damages plus Ksh. 100,000/= costs; the arithmetic reconciles but the judgment does not explain it explicitly
The grounds expressly invoke Rule 5 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024, but the Rules cited in the record are not further analysed; the numbering of the dispositive paragraphs in the judgment is irregular (items a, 1, 2, 3, 20)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anam & another v Chief Executive Officer & Accounting Officer, National Land Commission & another (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 243 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Motion dated 19th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/243/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.