Republic v Kajiado County Public Service Board; Public Service Commission (Interested Party); Gitonga & another (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 481 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Kajiado County to implement a Public Service Commission ruling on two seconded accountants, converting it into an enforceable judgment.
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 applicants' unopposed notice of motion dated 04.12.2024 should be allowed and the PSC decision dated 13.09.2023 adopted as a judgment of the court
- 2.Whether an order of mandamus should issue compelling the respondent to enforce the PSC decision as a decree of the court
- 3.Whether the respondents should pay the costs of the proceedings
Key legal issues
#Enforcement of an unchallenged PSC decision by way of mandamus and adoption as a judgment of the court
The application succeeded: the PSC decision dated 13.09.2023 was adopted as a judgment of the court and mandamus issued compelling the respondent to enforce it as a decree, with costs to the applicants.
The court found that the PSC decision was directed at the respondents, who were served and had an opportunity to challenge it on revision or appeal but did not. The respondents have a statutory and public duty to act as directed but refused, neglected or failed to comply. The application was unopposed despite service, no stay or setting aside was in place, and the interested party (PSC) did not oppose. The court held it just and equitable to safeguard the applicants' labour, economic and social rights.
Legal principles established
#- A public body with a statutory and public duty to comply with a decision of the Public Service Commission may be compelled by an order of mandamus, and the PSC decision may be adopted as a judgment of the court where the decision is unchallenged and unopposed.
Court orders
#- 1.That the court adopts as a judgment of the court the decision dated 13.09.2023 by the Public Service Commission sitting at Nairobi as against the respondents
- 2.That an order of mandamus is granted compelling the respondent to enforce the PSC decision dated 13.09.2023 as a decree of the court
- 3.That the respondents pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law; judicial review/mandamus to enforce a decision of the Public Service Commission on fair labour practices under Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution
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.
There is no doubt that the respondents have the statutory and public duty to act as directed but have neglected or refused to act accordingly.
That the Honourable Court hereby adopts as a judgement of the court the decision dated 13.09.2023 by the Public Service Commission sitting at Nairobi as against the respondents herein.
That the Honourable Court hereby grants the applicants an order of Mandamus for the respondent to be compelled to enforce the decision dated 13.09.2023 by the Public Service Commission sitting at Nairobi as against the respondent herein as a decree of this Honourable Court.
The respondents to pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the PSC decision as dated 13.09.2023 in the orders but also as 'the decision by the Public Service Commission dated 19.09.2023 and 13.09.2023' in the findings.
The application and verifying affidavit reference a letter dated 19.09.2023 serving the decision on 08.11.2023, which is internally inconsistent with the stated service chronology.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kajiado County Public Service Board; Public Service Commission (Interested Party); Gitonga & another (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/481/eng@2025-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.