Republic v Garissa County Government & 2 others; Bulle & another (Ex parte) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E041 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2093 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Garissa County to pay Ksh. 270,830 in court-awarded costs, ruling that claiming lack of funds does not excuse a government from paying court judgments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a Notice to Show Cause should issue against the County Secretary, CECM Finance and Chief Officer Finance of Garissa County for failing to pay Ksh. 270,830 owing under the court's order
- 2.Whether the Respondents wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the court order such that they should be committed to civil jail
- 3.Whether the Respondents' claim of financial constraints excuses non-payment
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether failure to pay a decretal sum due to lack of funds constitutes contempt warranting citation
The court found the debt undisputed and, rather than citing the officers for contempt, compelled payment with execution in default
The court noted there was no contention that the Respondents owed Ksh. 270,830, and that the Respondents themselves were willing to pay save for lack of funds in their account. On those facts the court treated the application as merited in substance and granted coercive execution relief instead of contempt sanctions.
Standard of proof in contempt proceedings
Contempt is quasi-criminal; wilful and deliberate disobedience must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probability, as submitted by the Respondents and supported by cited authority
The Respondents relied on Sheila Cassatt Issenberg and the Gatharia K. Mutitika line of authority for the proposition that contempt is of a criminal character and proof must be stricter than the civil balance of probabilities, though not the full criminal standard. The court did not expressly adopt or reject this standard in its disposition.
Legal principles established
#- Settlement of decretal sums by the national or county government does not necessarily depend on the availability of funds
Court orders
#- 1.An order compelling the Respondent to pay the outstanding amount of Ksh. 270,830
- 2.In default of payment, execution to issue
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Enforcement of the court's prior judgment (mandamus issued 15th October 2024) through contempt/citation proceedings; order of mandamus of 15th October 2024
Relief refused
#Notice to Show Cause and committal of the County Secretary, CECM Finance and Chief Officer Finance to civil jail for six months
The court instead issued an order compelling payment with execution in default, rather than issuing a notice to show cause or committing the officers
Costs of the application to the ex-parte Applicants
The judgment does not record any award of costs on the application
Costs
No costs order is recorded in the judgment; the final orders are limited to payment of Ksh. 270,830 and execution in default
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 therefore find that the application is merited and an order is issued compelling payment of this amount by the respondent. In default, execution to issue.
There was no contention that the respondents are owing the applicant kshs 270,830/- as averred.
settlement of decretal sum by the national and county government does not necessarily depend on the availability of funds
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the conservatory orders staying Section 5 of the County Allocations of Revenue Act as issued on 9th January 2024 in one paragraph but as 9th January 2025 in another
The petition relied on by the Respondents is inconsistently located - first at Embu, then at Kiambu
The date of part-payment to the 1st ex-parte Applicant is given as 5th February 2024 in one paragraph and 5th February 2025 elsewhere
The certified costs figure appears as Ksh. 256,359 in one paragraph and Ksh. 256,350 in the next
The court finds the application 'merited' but does not issue the Notice to Show Cause or committal orders sought; the relationship between the finding and the orders actually made is unexplained
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Garissa County Government & 2 others; Bulle & another (Ex parte) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E041 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2093 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2093/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.