Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment excerpt

Jamleck Waweru Karanja v County Government of Nakuru (Cause 300 of 2015) [2020] KEELRC 850 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2020
MMM. Mbaru
1,414 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

#

You cannot seize a Kenyan county government's property to settle a court award; you must first obtain official payment certificates and then compel the responsible officer through mandamus.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The County Government of Nakuru, as respondent, moved the court by application dated 21st February 2020 under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 22 Rules 22 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking to set aside and quash a notice of attachment dated 18th February 2020 and a proclamation by Direct 'O' Auctioneers, to declare the execution proceedings a nullity, and to lift the warrants of attachment. The dispute arose from a mediation settlement agreement dated 13th May 2019, adopted as the judgment of the court on 18th November 2019, under which the county government was to pay Ksh. 899,288.20 with a stay of execution until 30th November 2019. The respondent did not pay, and the claimant proceeded to execution by proclamation and attachment. The respondent argued it was never served, that no draft decree existed, that attachment contrary to section 21(4) GPA was irregular, and that execution against government lies only via judicial review for mandamus. The claimant countered that the GPA applies to the national government only and that the application was a delaying tactic. The court held that, following amendment by Act No. 35 of 2015, section 21 GPA applies to county governments, so execution must proceed by certificates of order and costs and then mandamus, not attachment. The warrants, proclamation and notice of attachment were declared irregular, recalled and set aside; the application was allowed, auctioneers' costs were placed on the claimant, and each party bore its own costs of the application. Judgment delivered electronically on 25th June 2020 by M. Mbaru J.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the claimant could levy execution by proclamation and attachment against a county government's property in satisfaction of the decree adopted on 18th November 2019
  2. 2.Whether execution proceedings against a county government must comply with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
  3. 3.Whether the warrants of attachment dated 14th February 2020 and notice of attachment dated 18th February 2020 were irregular and should be set aside

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether execution by attachment and proclamation lies against a county government

Holding

It does not; execution against a county government must comply with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, and the decree holder's remedy is a certificate of order and costs followed by mandamus

Reasoning

The court held that the Government Proceedings Act, amended by Act No. 35 of 2015, defines a county government as a government and extends section 21 to civil proceedings against county governments via subsection (5). A decree holder must first obtain a certificate of order and certificate of costs, then seek a writ of mandamus against the relevant officer. Direct attachment and proclamation against county government property are therefore irregular and a nullity.

p. 2
02

Whether the warrants, proclamation and notice of attachment in this case were irregular

Holding

Yes; the warrants dated 14th February 2020, the proclamation and the notice of attachment dated 18th February 2020 issued to Direct 'O' Auctioneers were irregular and were recalled and set aside

Reasoning

Having found that execution against a county government cannot proceed by attachment, and that the claimant neither obtained the statutory certificates nor pursued mandamus, the court concluded the execution proceedings were irregular. The attachment occurred after the expiry of the agreed stay on 30th November 2019, but that did not regularize a mode of execution barred against government property.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • No execution can be levied against the property of a government or county government in settlement of a decree; the only recourse is a certificate of order and certificate of costs under section 21 GPA, followed by an order of mandamus against the Chief Officer
  • Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act (as amended by Act No. 35 of 2015) applies, with necessary modifications, to civil proceedings against county governments

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 21st February 2020 allowed as prayed
  2. 2.Notice of attachment dated 18th February 2020 in execution of decree set aside
  3. 3.Proclamation by Direct 'O' Auctioneers against the respondent set aside
  4. 4.Warrants dated 14th February 2020 recalled and set aside
  5. 5.Costs due to the auctioneers to be borne by the claimant
  6. 6.Each party to bear own costs of the application

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 21(1), (2), (3), (4) of the Government Proceedings Act; Order 22 Rules 22 and 29 and sections 1A, 1B, 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules

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, application dated 21st February, 2020 is found with merit and is hereby allowed as prayed, notice of attachment dated 18th February in execution of decree and proclamation by Direct ‘O’ Auctioneers against the respondent is hereby set aside.
p. 2Final orders - setting aside of attachment and proclamation
Therefore, the law as it stands, no execution can be levied against the property of a Government and or a County Government in settlement of a decree in a civil case and hence the only recourse available to a decree holder is to apply for mandamus against the Chief Officer of the Government
p. 2Remedy against government/county government decrees
a party wishing to realize the fruits of a judgement against the government must first start by securing a certificate of costs and certificate of order against the Government
p. 2Section 21 GPA procedure - certificates before execution
Therefore, the respondents as a County Government, any execution proceedings against it should comply with the provisions of section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
p. 2Application of GPA to county governments

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment uses inconsistent party labels, describing the County Government as 'respondent' while also referring to 'The respondent as the applicant' and the 'claimant' as the executing decree holder

minor

The auctioneers' name is inconsistently spelled as 'Director O Auctioneers' and 'Direct O Auctioneers'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jamleck Waweru Karanja v County Government of Nakuru (Cause 300 of 2015) [2020] KEELRC 850 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/850/eng@2020-06-25

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