Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedJudicial Review E008 of 2026

Muga v Migori County Government & another

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
24 September 2026
NMNzioki Wa Makau
2,210 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-Parte Applicant, a former employee of Migori County Government, sought leave by Chamber Summons dated 9th April 2026 to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus compelling the Respondents to pay Kshs. 1,683,360/- with interest at 14% per annum, plus Kshs. 200,000/- costs, being sums awarded in Kisumu ELRC Miscellaneous Application No. E113 of 2024, in which the Court adopted a Public Service Commission decision in her favour. The Respondents opposed, arguing the application was wrongly intituled in the name of the Republic, that the wrong parties were sued since neither the County Secretary nor the Governor is the accounting officer under section 149(1) of the Public Finance Management Act, that the award was unliquidated and unquantified, and that the Applicant had not complied with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act by obtaining and serving a Certificate of Order against the Government, relying chiefly on Farmers Bus Service and Five Star Agencies. The Applicant relied on Article 159(2)(d) against technicality, and on Gathenji, Wachira Nderitu Ngugi, Egunza, Koroso, Kondo and Mirugi Kariuki to show that mandamus lies against the County Secretary and that only an arguable case is needed at the leave stage. Nzioki Wa Makau, J, in a brief disposition, held that the adopted PSC decision was an order of the Court, that the Respondents had demonstrably made no effort to give effect to it, and that mandamus lies where a public official declines to act as required by law. Leave was granted with costs to the Applicant. Objections on section 21 compliance and quantification were left for the substantive motion.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant's application is competent notwithstanding the objections raised as to its form and intitulemen
  2. 2.Whether the County Secretary, County Government of Migori is a proper Respondent against whom an order of mandamus may issue
  3. 3.Whether the Judgment and Decree in ELRC Miscellaneous Application No. E113 of 2024 created an enforceable legal obligation capable of being enforced through judicial review proceedings
  4. 4.Whether the Applicant has established the legal threshold for the grant of leave to apply for an order of mandamus

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave should issue for judicial review mandamus to enforce a decree against a county government

Holding

Leave granted; the adopted PSC decision is a court order and the Respondents have made no effort to comply, so mandamus lies.

Reasoning

The court framed the single question as whether there was basis for granting mandamus. It noted mandamus may be sought where there is non-compliance with a court order, cited Egunza for mandamus as the decree holder's remedy against government, found the PSC decision had been adopted as a court order, and found no effort by the Respondents to give effect to it. At the leave stage only an arguable case need be shown.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Mandamus is the only effective remedy available to a decree holder where Government fails to satisfy a judgment.
  • A decision of the Public Service Commission adopted by the court acquires the force of a court order and mandamus lies to compel its satisfaction.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the Ex-Parte Applicant to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus compelling the Respondents to satisfy the decree in Kisumu ELRC Misc. Application No. E113 of 2024
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Applicant

The bench

#

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

NM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked on substantive justice

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 decision of the Public Service Board was adopted as an order of the Court and there has been demonstrably no eort by the Respondents to give eect to the decision subject of the motion.
p. 4Adopted PSC decision as enforceable court order
I am in total agreement and therefore hold that the application for leave to apply for orders of mandamus lies. Application granted with costs to the Applicant.
p. 4Disposition - leave granted
An order of mandamus may be sought in instances where there is non-compliance with an order or edict of court.
p. 4Basis for mandamus

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Cause heading reads 'NZIOKI WA MAKAU' but case title and party name read 'Muga' (Pauline Amollo Muga).

minor

Applicant's gender inconsistently stated.

minor

Disposition refers to 'Public Service Board' though the adopted decision was by the Public Service Commission.

minor

Second Respondent never identified by name in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muga v Migori County Government & another", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review E008 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2542/eng@2026-09-24

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