Mohammed v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government (Judicial Review Application E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1876 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenya court ruled that a state body that delays paying a judgment for years cannot use limitation rules to escape owing interest on that debt.
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 certificate of order against the Government is reviewable or should be varied
- 2.Whether the period of accrual of interest should be varied from 8 years to 6 years
- 3.Whether the rate of interest of 14% per annum should be reviewed and varied to 12% per annum
- 4.Whether the Respondent can invoke the Limitation of Actions Act to defeat payment of interest on the decree
- 5.Whether further proceedings should be stayed
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent could seek review of the decree and certificate of order at this stage
The application for review was dismissed because the Respondent did not contest the decree and certificate when they were drawn and extracted, and had ample time to seek review before enforcement was sought.
Judgment was delivered on 4th June 2015 with an order for interest at 14% per annum. The decree and certificate of order reflected that rate. The Respondent never contested these documents when extracted and did not pursue its appeal, whose notice was struck out. A belated dispute over the rate and period of interest had no foundation and could not reopen a valid judgment.
Whether limitation bars recovery of interest on the decree
No - a judgment debtor who deliberately refuses to settle a money decree cannot use Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act to evade payment of interest.
The Respondent failed to satisfy the decree for almost 10 years, pursued an abortive appeal, and made assurances of payment while never disputing the interest content of the decree. The Applicant actively sought payment and enforcement. Allowing the judgment debtor to invoke limitation would reward its own delay and turn the limitation statute, meant as a shield, into a sword against enforcement.
Legal principles established
#- A party who deliberately refuses or ignores to settle a money decree cannot invoke the statute of limitation to decline to pay interest on the ground that payment has become time-barred
- The Limitation of Actions Act is a shield against stale claims and cannot be used as a sword to defeat enforcement of a valid judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th April 2025 filed by the Respondent is declined
- 2.Costs to the Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original and supervisory jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over enforcement of its decree in Kericho E&LRC Cause No. 30 of 2014
Relief refused
#Stay of further proceedings
The entire application was declined; the Respondent had long resisted satisfaction of the decree and no basis for review was shown
Review and variation of the certificate of order against the Government
The Respondent did not contest the decree and certificate when drawn and extracted, and nothing was shown as reviewable at that late stage
Variation of interest rate from 14% to 12% per annum and interest period from 8 to 6 years
No foundation for the belated dispute; the Respondent had ample time to seek review and could have disputed interest on appeal but opted not to
Costs
Costs to the 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 Court does not think that a party who deliberately refuses or ignores to settle a money decree, can invoke the statute of limitation under Section 4[4] of the Limitation of Actions Act, and decline to pay interest, on the ground that payment has become time-barred.
The Limitation of Actions Act is intended to be a shield against stale claims. It protects defendants from being vexed on old matters. It promotes finality in legal disputes. It cannot have been intended as a bar in the full enforcement of Judgments.
The application dated 24th April 2025 filed by the Respondent is declined.
It is an attempt at using the law of limitation as a sword, to shred to pieces a valid Judgment of the Court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohammed v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government (Judicial Review Application E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1876 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho E&LRC Cause No. 30 of 2014 (Enforcement - Application dated 24th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1876/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.