Republic v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others; Miller and Company Advocates (Ex parte Applicant)
The bottom line
#Mombasa County's Finance CECM was ordered by the Environment and Land Court to pay a law firm Kshs 38 million plus 14% interest for unpaid legal fees.
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 respondents were properly served.
- 2.Whether the court should grant an order of mandamus against the respondents.
- 3.Who shall bear the costs of the application.
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were properly served
Service on the County Attorney sufficed as service on all respondents
The applicant emailed the court order and certificate of order against the government to the County Attorney's office and served the leave application and mandamus application on that office. The County Attorney, established under the Mombasa County Office of the County Attorney Act 2017, is the principal legal adviser to the county government and advises all departments and agencies, so service on that office constituted sufficient service on all respondents.
Whether mandamus should issue against the respondents
Mandamus issued against the 2nd respondent only; claim against the rest dismissed
Applying the eight-factor test from Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security Ex-Parte Schon Noorani, the court found the 1st respondent clearly indebted, with no pending appeal, proper awareness through the County Attorney, a prior demand with three months' notice, and no effort or willingness to pay. The respondents invoked mere technicalities without a bona fide defence, and the applicant had no other adequate remedy since execution against government is barred. The statutory duty to pay fell on the 2nd respondent.
Who shall bear the costs of the application
Each party to bear its own costs
Although costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and a successful party should ordinarily get costs, the applicant succeeded against only one of six respondents, so no costs were awarded.
Legal principles established
#- Mandamus lies to compel a public authority to perform its public legal duty, subject to factors including a public legal duty, clear right, prior demand and refusal, and no other adequate remedy.
- Where a county government is protected against execution, mandamus against the officer with the statutory duty to pay is the viable remedy for enforcing a judgment debt.
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, but a party succeeding against only one of several respondents may be denied costs.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Mandamus issued directed to the 2nd respondent, County Executive Committee Member for Finance and Economic Planning, to pay the ex parte applicant Kshs 38,009,005.56 together with interest of 14% per annum from 11.12.2024 till payment in full.
- 2.The claim against the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents is dismissed.
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (order of mandamus against county government over a decretal sum arising from an ELC matter)
Relief refused
#Mandamus against the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents
The specific statutory duty of payment falls on the 2nd respondent only
Costs of the application to the applicant
Applicant succeeded against only one of six respondents
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
An order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued directed to the 2nd respondent, namely, County Executive Committee Member for Finance and Economic Planning to pay the ex parte applicant Kshs 38,009,005.56 together with interest of 14% per annum from 11.12.2024 till payment in full.
The court is satisfied that the 2nd respondent has a statutory duty to settle the decretal amount as required by law and that an order of mandamus should issue.
The court is of the view that the respondents are merely trying to invoke technicalities of procedure to evade their obligation to settle the decretal amount. They do not have a genuine and bona fide defence to the applicant's claim.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment signed at Thika though the court is at Mombasa
2nd respondent's portfolio title differs between cause title and operative order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others; Miller and Company Advocates (Ex parte Applicant)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E014 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5667/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.