Republic v Governor of Kericho County & another; Ng’eno (Exparte) (Judicial Review Application E003 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 989 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kericho court ordered the county government to pay KES 10.5 million awarded to a successful litigant, confirming mandamus compels payment of county debts.
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 ex parte Applicant satisfied the prerequisite requirements for execution of decrees against the Government under section 21(1) and (2) of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether an order of mandamus should issue compelling the Respondents to pay the decretal sum, interest and certified costs
Key legal issues
#Compliance with section 21(1) and (2) of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules as a condition precedent to mandamus
The court held that although the Respondents alleged non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, the Respondents had knowledge of the claim and consented to the extraction of the certificate against them, satisfying the purpose of the statutory requirement
The court noted there was no dispute that judgment was entered in the underlying petition. A certificate against the Respondents was issued by consent by Justice Nderitu in May 2022, and certificates directing the County Secretary to pay the decretal sum and costs were issued by the Deputy Registrar on 21st June 2023 and served via G4S courier on the County Attorney. Because the Respondents participated in the consent and had knowledge, any deviation from the prescribed form was a procedural lapse curable under Article 159 and section 72 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act.
Entitlement to mandamus to enforce a decree against a county government
Mandamus was warranted to compel the Respondents to discharge their public duty to pay the decretal sum, interest and costs, there being no other remedy available to the decree holder
Relying on the Gathenji principles and the Koroso decision, the court accepted that the Applicant, being barred from executing against the Government, has no option apart from mandamus to realise the fruits of his judgment. The Respondents had wrongly abdicated their public duty by refusing to pay despite service of the certificate of order. The application was accordingly allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2.
Legal principles established
#- A successful litigant's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment must not be thwarted, and courts should adopt interpretations favouring enforcement of accrued rights
- Mandamus lies to enforce a public duty where there is a specific legal right and no other specific, convenient and effectual remedy to enforce it
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus directed to the respondents to pay the ex parte applicant Kshs. 8,394,500 being damages awarded, Kshs. 1,678,900 being accrued interest, and Kshs. 491,971 being certified costs from Kericho ELRC Petition No. 2 of 2020
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the ex parte applicant (application allowed in terms of prayer 1 and 2)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Rule 7 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
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.
In the circumstances of the case, it is my finding that the applicants have established their application which is warranted and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer 1 and 2 of the application.
In the circumstances of the case, it is my finding that the Respondents have had knowledge of this claim. They have participated in a consent to extract a certificate against them with costs.
Unless something is done he will forever be left babysitting his barren decree. This state of afiairs cannot be allowed to prevail under our current Constitutional dispensation in light of the provisions of Article 48 of the Constitution which enjoins the State to ensure access to justice for all persons.
Issues in the judgment
#Interest and costs figures differ between the prayers and the findings: the motion seeks Kshs. 491,971 while the certificate of costs as described in the further affidavit and findings refers to Kshs. 491,970
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Governor of Kericho County & another; Ng’eno (Exparte) (Judicial Review Application E003 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 989 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application pursuant to Notice of Motion dated 26th September, 2023 (Kericho ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/989/eng@2024-05-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.