Akura v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3917 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a claim to force a state agency to pay awarded costs because the claimant couldn't prove the required documents were properly served on the Attorney General.
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 Applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of the orders sought in her application
- 2.who to bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in payment of taxed costs against a government entity amounts to a violation of Articles 10, 47 and 232 of the Constitution
No - such claims fail the Anarita Karimi specificity test and constitutional litigation is not open for every claim that may be dealt with under alternative mechanisms; judicial review is conceptually distinct from a constitutional petition
The court held that judicial review interrogates legality, procedural propriety and rationality of administrative action, whereas constitutional litigation determines alleged violations of constitutional rights. The prayers for declarations and compensatory damages transcended the judicial review proceedings and required a properly instituted petition pleading violations with precision. Invoking the constitutional avoidance principle, the court declined to entertain the constitutional limb where statutory enforcement mechanisms existed and strict compliance with them had not been demonstrated.
Whether the Applicant complied with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act as a condition precedent to mandamus
No - although the Applicant claimed to have served the certificate on the Attorney General, no delivery receipt or affidavit of service was exhibited proving service of the email, so the mandamus application was premature
Applying Order 5 Rule 22B of the Civil Procedure Rules, service by email is complete only when the sender receives a delivery report, which must be filed with an affidavit of service. The annextures showed emails purportedly sent, but no delivery receipt was annexed. Unlike in Hawkind Corporation, the Attorney General never acknowledged the email address as its official address, and no delivery report was filed. The burden of proof under Section 107 of the Evidence Act lay on the Applicant, who failed to discharge it on a balance of probabilities.
Legal principles established
#- Where Parliament has prescribed a specific statutory procedure for enforcement of decrees against the Government under the Government Proceedings Act, a litigant must demonstrate strict compliance with that procedure before alleging constitutional violations arising from non-payment
- A court will not determine a constitutional issue when a matter may properly be decided on another basis (constitutional avoidance)
- Service by email is deemed effected only when the sender receives a delivery receipt, which must be exhibited with an affidavit of service
Court orders
#- 1.The whole Originating Motion is incompetent, premature and misconceived and is struck out
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs in the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(2) and (3), 47(1)(2), 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act; Section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act; Rule 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024
Relief refused
#Declarations that the Respondents violated Articles 10, 47(1), 47(2) and 232 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act
Constitutional relief transcends the scope of judicial review proceedings and failed the Anarita Karimi specificity and precision test; delay in settling a decree does not automatically amount to a constitutional violation
Judicial review order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to pay Kshs. 356,675/= plus interest at 14% per annum
The Applicant failed to prove service of the certificate of order against the Government and related documents on the Attorney General as required by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act; no delivery receipt for the emails was exhibited
Compensatory damages for violation of Article 47(1)
Untenable in a judicial review application; ought to have been pursued through a properly instituted constitutional petition
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs in the application
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.
this Court is not persuaded that every delay or failure in settlement of a decree against a government entity automatically translates into a constitutional violation
where Parliament has prescribed a specific statutory procedure for enforcement of decrees against the Government, under the Government Proceedings Act, a litigant must first demonstrate strict compliance with that procedure before alleging violation of constitutional rights arising from non-payment
It means that it is not enough to print out am email sent or purported to have been sent out as the applicant herein did: there must proof of a delivery receipt of the email to accompany it, and demonstrated by an Affidavit of Service by an officer of the Court
having also found that the prayers for the constitutional reliefs sought are untenable, then the whole Originating Motion is incompetent, premature and misconceived and is hereby struck out
Thus, the application having been deemed as not having been properly opposed, then each party shall bear their own costs in the application
Issues in the judgment
#The Originating Motion is attributed inconsistently to a male and female applicant, with pronouns switching between 'she/her' and 'he/his' throughout the judgment
The court recites that 'The Respondents argue that he did not' serve the Attorney General, yet earlier records that the Respondents did not file any responses to the Judicial Review Application
Conflicting dates: the supporting affidavit is described as annexing 'certificate of order against the Government, dated 16th April 2024' while the judgment elsewhere states the certificate was dated 16th April 2025; an email dated '30th May 2026' is also recited among annextures predating the filing of the Motion
Inconsistent case number references: prayers refer to 'LAT dispute No. E0079 of 2024' and 'LAT dispute No. E009 of 2024' while the Tribunal case is elsewhere styled 'Land Acquisition Tribunal Dispute no. TRLAP NO. E 009 of 2024'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akura v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3917 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR NO. E007 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3917/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.