Republic v County Government of Turkana & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party); Joseph Kiprono Koech (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application 4A of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1859 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to stop execution of a Kshs. 25.5 million salary judgment against Turkana County, ruling counties must budget for court-ordered 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 Respondents' application dated 10th December 2024 for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 30th July 2024 pending appeal should be granted
- 2.Whether the application was filed after inordinate delay
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable, including the contention that the order of mandamus was issued contrary to the 6-month time-limit under Sections 9(2) and (3) of the Law Reform Act
- 4.Whether the Notice of Appeal, filed outside the 14 days allowed under Rule 77(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, supports a valid appeal
- 5.Whether the Respondents would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeds
Key legal issues
#Delay in filing the stay application
The application was presented after inordinate delay of about five months, which weighed against granting stay
Judgment was delivered on 30th July 2024 and the stay application was filed on 10th December 2024, some five months later. Notices of execution had already issued on 21st August, 13th September and 21st November 2024. The court treated this as an inordinate delay undermining the application.
Validity of the intended appeal
The Notice of Appeal was filed out of time without leave, so there can be no legally valid appeal
The Notice of Appeal filed on 28th August 2024 exceeded the 14 days allowed under Rule 77(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, and no leave to file out of time was obtained. Additionally, no draft Memorandum of Appeal was availed to substantiate the claim that the appeal was arguable.
Limitation under the Law Reform Act
The limitation argument was sterile because Article 23(3)(f) of the Constitution mandates the grant of judicial review orders, and the delay resulted from the Respondents' sustained refusal to pay
The Respondents contended the mandamus violated the 6-month time-limit in Sections 9(2) and (3) of the Law Reform Act. The court held it preposterous that successive judgments and Public Service Commission orders could be rendered inexecutable on limitation grounds, especially where the delay was caused by the very party invoking the limitation law.
Substantial loss and the size of the decretal sum
The size of the decretal sum was irrelevant; what mattered was that the sum was found owing and remained unpaid
The Respondents argued the substantial decretal sum would disrupt budgetary projections and execution risked committal of officers to civil jail. The court held the amount was found due in 2014, giving the County over 10 years to budget for it, and County Governments must prioritize judgment-debts, especially employment dues.
Legal principles established
#- County Governments must prioritize settlement of judgment-debts in their budgetary planning, especially employment dues
- An employee's salary has statutory protection under the Employment Act and must be paid when due
- Without leave, a Notice of Appeal filed outside the 14 days allowed under Rule 77(2) supports no legally valid appeal
- Constitutional order and the rule of law demand that unchallenged decisions and orders be implemented; litigation must come to an end
Court orders
#- 1.The Application filed by the Respondents dated 10th December 2024 is declined
- 2.Costs to the Ex-Parte Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(3)(f) of the Constitution (judicial review orders)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 30th July 2024 pending appeal
The application was an abuse of the process of the Court; the judgment was part of a long chain of unchallenged decisions establishing the debt, the application was made after inordinate delay, the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time without leave, and no draft Memorandum of Appeal was availed
Costs
Costs to the Ex-Parte Applicant
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.
The Application filed by the Respondents dated 10th December 2024 is declined.
Costs to the Ex-Parte Applicant.
The order sought to stay execution of the Judgment of the Court, is in abuse of the process of the Court, without merit and is declined.
Constitutional order and the rule of law, demand that these decisions must not be in vain, and must be implemented. Litigation must come to an end.
County Governments must prioritize settlement of judgment-debts, in their budgetary planning, especially where such debts involve employment dues.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states inconsistently that judgment was delivered on 30th July 2024 and also on 10th July 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Turkana & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party); Joseph Kiprono Koech (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application 4A of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application, Nakuru (Respondents' Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1859/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.