Republic v County Secretary County Government of Meru & 3 others; Kiunga (Suing as the Administratix of the Estate of Stephen Michuki Kiunga – Deceased) (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E008 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6764 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered Meru County officials to personally ensure payment of Kshs.541,746 in court-awarded costs plus 14% interest after they ignored a served decree.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to mandamus to enforce payment of taxed costs against a county government
The application was merited; mandamus issued compelling the respondents jointly and severally to pay Kshs.541,746/= plus 14% interest from 12.5.2014
The ex parte applicant demonstrated that a decree and certificate of order for costs dated 8.5.2024, arising from judgment of 29.9.2017 in Meru ELC No. 68 of 2014, were duly served on the respondents. The certificate had not been appealed, stayed or reviewed. Some respondents were accounting officers with a statutory duty to pay. No explanation was offered for non-payment, satisfying the requirements of Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
Preconditions for issuance of mandamus against government
Compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act - issuance of a certificate of order for costs and formal demand notice - must be proved before mandamus can issue
Relying on Order 29 Rule 2(2)(B) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, the court noted that decrees against government cannot be executed in the usual manner; the statutory recourse is a certificate of order for costs plus a formal demand, failing which mandamus lies against the accounting officers.
Legal principles established
#- Mandamus compels performance of a public duty imposed by statute where there has been failure to perform it to the detriment of a party with a legal right to its performance
- An order of mandamus cannot issue without proof of compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
- Service of an unsatisfied decree and certificate of order for costs, unappealed and unreviewed, gives a specific right to the applicant and a corresponding duty on accounting officers to pay
Court orders
#- 1.An order compelling the respondents jointly and severally to pay the ex parte applicant Kshs.541,746/= as per the stated costs
- 2.Interest at 14% per annum with effect from 12.5.2014 until payment in full
- 3.Costs of the application to the ex parte applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26), Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Secretary County Government of Meru & 3 others; Kiunga (Suing as the Administratix of the Estate of Stephen Michuki Kiunga – Deceased) (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E008 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6764 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review proceedings (Notice of Motion dated 1.7.2024) re Meru ELC Case No. 68 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6764/eng@2024-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.