Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 549 (KLR)

Chanandin v Nairobi City County (Judicial Review Application E021 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 549 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
3 February 2026
1,406 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court compelled a government respondent to pay Ksh 1,146,219.64 owed under a court decree, confirming mandamus works when the proper procedure is followed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 31st October 2022 seeking an order of mandamus to compel the respondent to satisfy a decree issued on 19th September 2022 in Nairobi ELC Case No 439 of 20028, Anju Chanandin v City Council of Nairobi & Another, in the total sum of Ksh 1,146,219.64, comprising the decretal sum, accumulated interest of Ksh 293,333.64 and taxed costs of Ksh 352,886. The respondent opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by Violet Onyangi, contending that mandamus could not issue because the applicant had failed to comply with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act by obtaining and serving a certificate of order. In a further affidavit sworn 7th December 2023, the applicant demonstrated that the certificate of order had since been issued and served. The court restated the scope of mandamus as articulated by the Court of Appeal in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge and applied the decision in Republic v Attorney General & Another ex parte James Alfred Koroso, holding that mandamus lies where a judgment creditor has complied with section 21 and the Government fails to honour its obligation. Adopting Odunga J's formulation in the Nassir Mwandihi case, the court found the section 21 procedure fully complied with - valid decree, certificate of order obtained and served, and demand made - and that the respondent had not controverted compliance nor shown any appeal, stay or judicial review against the original judgment. Allowing the application, the court issued mandamus compelling the respondent to pay Ksh 1,146,219.64 and awarded costs to the applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the section 21 Government Proceedings Act preconditions for mandamus

Holding

Yes - the applicant obtained a valid decree, a certificate of order against the Government, served it on the respondent, and made demand; the respondent did not controvert compliance and there was no appeal, stay or judicial review against the original judgment.

Reasoning

The court adopted the Odunga J formulation that mandamus against the Government is an elaborate procedure requiring proof of compliance with the Government Proceedings Act as to the certificate of costs and certificate of order, plus a demand and refusal. The court found it undisputed that the applicant satisfied all section 21 requirements, that service was effected (cured by further affidavit), and that the respondent failed to controvert compliance or show any appeal or stay. Principles of justice and finality require valid orders to be honoured.

p. 3
02

Scope and efficacy of an order of mandamus

Holding

Mandamus is a command of extensive remedial nature directed to a person or authority to perform a public duty, issuing where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy, and it must command no more than the party is legally bound to perform.

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge, quoting Halsbury's Laws of England, the court restated that mandamus remedies defects of justice, may issue notwithstanding an alternative remedy that is less convenient, beneficial and effectual, and cannot command performance beyond the legal obligation or in a specific mode where a statute leaves discretion as to mode of performance.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will only issue an order of mandamus if the requirements under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, including issuance and service of a certificate of order and a demand for payment, have been fulfilled.
  • Where a judgment creditor has complied with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and the Government fails to honour its obligation, an order of mandamus lies to compel performance of that statutory duty.
  • A cause of action for mandamus against the Government accrues only after compliance with section 21 and a demand for payment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order for mandamus issued compelling the respondent to comply with the decree issued on 19th September 2022 in Nairobi ELC Case No 439 of 20028 and pay the applicant Ksh 1,146,219.64 being the decretal sum and interest accrued
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the applicant
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction to issue an order of mandamus (Government Proceedings Act, section 21 procedure)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chanandin v Nairobi City County (Judicial Review Application E021 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 549 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/549/eng@2026-02-03

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