Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 26th November 2024 (judicial review; ELRC Cause No. 205 of 2018 decree)

Republic v Nairobi County Government & another; Ong’ang’o (Ex parte Applicant) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E062 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1973 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 July 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,452 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

#

The ELRC ordered Nairobi City County to pay a Kshs 683,465 court decree, ruling that lack of budget allocation is no excuse for ignoring court judgments.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant obtained judgment in his favour against Nairobi City County Government in ELRC Cause No. 205 of 2018 on 16th February 2023 for Kshs. 511,125 plus costs and interest, and extracted a decree dated 28th April 2023. His party-and-party bill of costs was taxed at Kshs. 172,340, and he obtained and served a Certificate of Order and Certificate of Order of Costs in October 2024. Despite notices, the Respondents did not pay. He sought judicial review of mandamus compelling the Respondents to satisfy the decree and the Certificate of Taxation dated 15th October 2024, pursuant to leave granted on 22nd November 2024. The Respondents, through a replying affidavit of the Chief Officer - Finance, opposed the application, arguing it was defective, that the Applicant failed to comply with Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act, that the County is funded through County Assembly allocations, and that payment must comply with the budget-making provisions of the Public Finance Management Act. The Applicant submitted that under Section 21(1) and (3) of the Government Proceedings Act payment is mandatory once a Certificate of Order is served, that mandamus is the appropriate remedy, and that the CEC Finance as accounting officer bears the statutory duty to satisfy the decree under Section 148(1) of the Public Finance Management Act. The court found the debt of Kshs. 683,465/- undisputed, held that two years after judgment the Respondents should have budgeted for the amount, allowed the application, and issued an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to satisfy the decree and certificate of taxation, with costs to the Applicant.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Respondents have a legal obligation to satisfy the decree issued in ELRC Cause No. 205 of 2018
  2. 2.Whether the Ex-parte Applicant is entitled to costs of this application

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel a county government to satisfy a decree and taxed costs

Holding

Yes; the application for mandamus was merited and was granted compelling the Respondents to satisfy the decree and certificate of taxation totalling Kshs. 683,465/-.

Reasoning

The court found the debt of Kshs. 683,465/- (decretal sum of Kshs. 511,125 plus taxed costs of Kshs. 172,340) was not denied, having arisen from a judgment in ELRC 205/2018 and taxation by the Deputy Registrar. The Respondents' defence was that funds were not budgeted for, but the court held that two years after the judgment they should have budgeted for the amount; financial constraint is no excuse for failing to satisfy a decree.

p. 4
02

Whether lack of budgetary allocation under the Public Finance Management Act excuses non-payment

Holding

No; delay in budgeting does not excuse non-payment of a court-ordered debt.

Reasoning

The Respondents contended that the County could only pay decretal sums per allocations approved by the County Assembly under Sections 117, 125, 129, 131 and 133 of the Public Finance Management Act. The court rejected this, reasoning that the judgment having been delivered in February 2023, the Respondents had had sufficient time to budget for the decretal amount and should have done so by now.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a Certificate of Order against the Government has been issued and duly served, payment is mandatory and mandamus lies to compel the accounting officer to satisfy the decree.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to satisfy the decree in ELRC No. 2025 of 2018 dated 28th April 2023 and the certificate of taxation dated 15th October 2024, totalling Kshs. 683,465/-
  2. 2.The Respondents to pay the costs of the application

The bench

#

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

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction (orders of mandamus) pursuant to leave granted by the court's order dated 22nd November 2024; Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40 and Public Finance Management Act

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.

I find the application is merited and I allow the application for an order of mandamus which I now grant compelling the respondents to satisfy the decree in ELRC No 2025 of 2018 dated 28th April 2023 and certificate of taxation dated 15th October 2024 all to the tune of kshs 683,465/-.
p. 4Final orders - mandamus granted
It is now 2 years since the said judgment on February 2023 and so the respondent should have by now budgeted for the said amount.
p. 4Budgetary constraint is no defence to satisfaction of a decree
Section 21(1) and (3) of the Government Proceedings Act provides that once a Certificate of Order against the Government has been issued and duly served, payment is mandatory.
p. 3Statutory duty to pay after service of Certificate of Order

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The judgment refers inconsistently to the underlying cause number, citing both 'ELRC Cause No. 2025 of 2018' and 'ELRC Cause No. 205 of 2018'.

minor

Inconsistent dates: the taxing of the bill of costs is said to have occurred on 13th October 2023 in one paragraph but the court later refers to taxation 'by the Deputy Registrar on 13/4/2023' (the filing date of the bill).

minor

The County's own case states the Certificate of Order was served on 23rd October 2023, whereas the Applicant says service occurred on 28th and 30th October 2024.

minor

The leave order date is rendered '22st November 2024', an apparent typographical error.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Nairobi County Government & another; Ong’ang’o (Ex parte Applicant) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E062 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1973 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2024 (judicial review; ELRC Cause No. 205 of 2018 decree). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1973/eng@2025-07-03

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