Republic v County Government of Nakuru & Nakuru County Public Service Board (Ex-Parte Rebeccah Bitengo Achuti & 28 Others)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ordered Nakuru County to pay 29 former employees their court-awarded compensation, ruling that lack of budget allocation is no excuse for delaying payment of 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 the application for grant of order for mandamus is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus should issue to compel payment of the decretal sum despite the Respondents' budgetary constraints and objections on non-joinder of accounting officers
Yes - mandamus issued; non-joinder of accounting officers is not fatal, and the Respondents' failure to settle or challenge the decree justified the order.
The court found the decree, taxed costs and Certificate of Order against the Government were served, yet the decretal sum remained unpaid since March 2024. The Respondents neither appealed nor sought review. Non-joinder of accounting officers was held non-fatal per Consolata Kihara line of authority. Lack of budgetary allocation was held not a lawful excuse for non-payment of government debts.
Legal principles established
#- Lack of budgetary allocation is not a lawful reason for Government to refuse or indefinitely delay payment of decrees.
- Mis-joinder or non-joinder does not invalidate judicial review proceedings.
- Section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act places the duty to pay a decree against the Government on the Accounting Officer.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to pay each of the Subjects/Applicants the decretal sums awarded (1 month salary in lieu of notice, gratuity at 31%, compensation equivalent to 3 months' salary for unfair termination, interest at 6% per annum, and costs of suit) as per the judgment of 31st October 2023 and decree dated 26th November 2025 in Nakuru ELRC No. E039 of 2022
- 2.The Subjects/Applicants to have costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; leave granted on 30th April 2026
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 Respondent having been served with the decree and the certificate of order granted failed from 6th March 2024 to make efforts to settle the decretal sum. They did not appeal the decree or apply for review of the same and so there is a good reason to grant the order for mandamus as prayed.
Government decree is not conditional upon a subsequent budgetary allocation or parliamentary approval. The Government has a responsibility to make provision for its liabilities so that successful litigants are not left without a remedy.
That an order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Respondents to pay each of the Subjects/Applicants the decretal sums awarded
The Subjects/Applicants will have costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Decree chronology inconsistent: decree dated 26th November 2025 but computations adopted as court order on 6th March 2024.
Mandamus issued against Respondents though court held the statutory duty to pay lies with accounting officers who were not joined.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Nakuru & Nakuru County Public Service Board (Ex-Parte Rebeccah Bitengo Achuti & 28 Others)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2583/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.