Njuguna & 66 others v Attorney General & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E001 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2016 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court declined to force KCAA to pay the full Kshs 180 million award but ordered release of the undisputed portion within 90 days.
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 are entitled to the writ of Mandamus compelling the Director-General of the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority to pay the decretal sums
- 2.Whether the Applicants ought to be granted leave to commence execution proceedings against the 2nd Respondent before the taxation and certification of the bill of costs
Key legal issues
#Whether Mandamus should issue to compel payment of the decretal sums
Mandamus was not granted because the decretal amounts remain disputed and subject to a pending appeal in the Court of Appeal; only the undisputed amount was ordered released.
The court acknowledged the decrees from Ndolo J and Makau J and that the review applications in ELRC JR No. 3 of 2015 were dismissed. However, an appeal (Civil Appeal E141 of 2023) against the dismissal of the review was filed, meaning the issue of the correct amounts is still pending. Since an application on review is before the Court of Appeal, execution has not crystallized, and mandamus could not issue for the full sums; the court instead released the undisputed amount.
Whether the undisputed sum should be released pending final determination
The court directed release of the undisputed amount to the Applicants' counsel within 90 days, with execution to issue in default.
The 2nd Respondent's submissions indicated willingness to release an undisputed sum into a joint interest-earning account. The court adopted this concession and ordered that the undisputed amount be released forthwith to the Applicants' counsel for transmission to the Applicants, to be released within 90 days, failing which execution may proceed on that amount.
Legal principles established
#- Where a decretal sum is partly disputed and an appeal on review is pending, the court may direct release of the undisputed portion with execution available on default
- Mandamus will compel performance of a public duty imposed by statute where the person entitled expects its performance
Court orders
#- 1.The undisputed amount be forthwith released to the Applicants' counsel for transmission to the Applicants pending final determination of the appeals or agreement by the parties
- 2.The amounts be released within 90 days, in default of which execution may proceed on the said amount
- 3.Costs in the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under its judicial review mandate; Article 48 and Article 159 of the Constitution invoked by the Applicants
Relief refused
#Order of Mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent to pay Kshs. 180,300,964 plus interest
There is a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal on the issue of review, so the execution has not crystallized and the exact sums payable remain in dispute
Leave to commence execution proceedings against the 2nd Respondent before taxation of the bill of costs
Not granted as sought; the court instead ordered release of only the undisputed sum
Costs
Costs in the application
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 will therefore direct that the undisputed amount be forthwith released to the applicant's counsel herein for transmission to the applicants pending final determination of the appeals or agreement by the parties.
The amounts be released within 90 days. In default execution may proceed on the said amount . Costs in the application.
In view of the fact that there is an application pending before the Court of Appeal on the issue of review, the execution has not crystalized.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states different undisputed amounts in the Respondent's pleadings and in the court's directions: Kshs. 73,015,632 in the replying affidavit versus Kshs. 13,015,632 in the court's ruling, making the sum ordered released ambiguous.
Conflicting dates for the filing of Civil Appeal E141 of 2023: 9th March 2023 in submissions versus 19/3/2023 in the court's own narration.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna & 66 others v Attorney General & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E001 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2016 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Judicial Review Application No. 3 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2016/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.