Twilight Investments Limited v Machakos Investment Promotion Board & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 782 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Machakos County entities must pay a landlord KShs 2 million plus interest and costs within 90 days after a court order compelled them to settle an unpaid rent judgment.
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 relief of mandamus is merited
- 2.Whether the relief of contempt of court sought alongside mandamus is available at this stage
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to grant mandamus
The court has jurisdiction to issue mandamus under Article 23(3)(f) of the Constitution, Section 8(1) of the Law Reform Act and Section 13(5)(b) of the Environment and Land Court Act
The court traced its judicial review jurisdiction to Article 23(3)(f) of the Constitution, Section 8(1) of the Law Reform Act and Section 13(5)(b) of the Environment and Land Court Act, the latter empowering the court to grant any relief it deems fit and just, including prerogative orders. This established the foundation for entertaining the motion for mandamus against county government entities.
Compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act as a precondition to mandamus
The applicant complied with all legal prerequisites: it obtained a certificate of costs and certificate of order against the government, and served them on the responsible CEC member of finance on 12/6/2023
Section 21(1) and (2) of the GPA require the decree-holder to be armed with a certificate of costs and a certificate of order against the government issued after expiry of 21 days from judgment, and to serve these on the responsible government body. The applicant did so, the respondents were unresponsive, and the applicant then moved the court four months later.
Proof of quantum due
The applicant proved the amounts due were known and ascertainable, satisfying the requirement in Jaribu Credit Traders Ltd v Nairobi County Government
Citing Jaribu Credit Traders Limited v Nairobi County Government, the court held the applicant had to prove the sum claimed was actually due and the quantum ascertainable. The decree, certificate of order and certificate of costs established the decretal sum and costs, so the hurdle was met, entitling the successful litigant to enjoy the fruits of the judgment under Article 48.
Personal liability of government officers
No officer is personally liable under Section 21(4) GPA; mandamus lies against the entities, and joining the 1st and 3rd respondents lets them identify the responsible officers
Section 21(3) of the GPA designates the accounting officer as the liable officer, but Section 21(4) shields officers from personal liability. The court therefore tailored the mandamus against the Board, the Chief Officer-Finance/County Treasurer and/or the County Government, noting the joined respondents could identify the responsible officers.
Contempt relief sought alongside mandamus
Declined as premature; contempt must follow the judgment and any non-compliance, guided by Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Part 81 of the England and Wales CPR
The court found the contempt relief premature since non-compliance could only arise after judgment. It directed that any future contempt proceedings be anchored on Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Part 81 of the England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal principles established
#- Mandamus compels a public entity to perform a public duty it has failed to perform to the detriment of a party with a legal right to expect performance
- To enforce a decree against government, the decree-holder must obtain a certificate of order against the government after expiry of 21 days, serve it on the responsible government body, and prove the sum is due and the quantum ascertainable
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus compelling the Machakos Investment Promotion Board and/or Chief Officer-Finance/County Treasurer, Machakos County and/or Machakos County Government to pay the applicant within 90 days Kshs. 1,815,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 30/08/2018 to 28/02/2019 (Kshs. 181,500/-) and interest at 6% per annum on Kshs. 1,996,500/- from 24/01/2019 to 31/05/2023 (Kshs. 519,000/-) until payment in full in terms of the certificate of order against government issued on 2/06/2023
- 2.An order of mandamus compelling the same entities to pay the applicant Ksh. 230,775/- in terms of the certificate of order for costs against the government issued on 2/06/2023
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(3)(f) of the Constitution, Section 8(1) of the Law Reform Act and Section 13(5)(b) of the Environment and Land Court Act; leave granted 15/11/2023 under Order 53 Rule 3(1) Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Notice to show cause / contempt proceedings against the responsible officers
Premature - contempt can only be sought after a positive outcome of the mandamus judgment and any consequential non-compliance
Costs
Costs of the motion/suit awarded to the applicant.
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.
An order of mandamus would compel the performance of a public duty which was imposed on a person or body of persons by a statute and where that person or body of persons had failed to perform to the detriment of a party who had a legal right to expect the duty to be performed.
The purpose of mandamus is to compel the performance of a public duty or an act contrary to, or evasive of, the law; as I said above, it does not lie against a public oficer as a matter of course
In my humble view, this relief is premature as it has to be sought after a positive outcome of this judgment and the consequential non-compliance (if any).
An order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the Machakos Investment Promotion Board and/or Chief Oficer-Finance/County Treasurer, Machakos County and/ or Machakos County Government to pay the applicant within 90 days hereof the sum of ksh. 1,815,000/-
An order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the Machakos Investment Promotion Board and/or Chief Oficer-Finance/County Treasurer, Machakos County and/ or Machakos County Government to pay to the applicant the sum of Ksh. 230,775/- in terms of the certificate of order for costs against the government issued on 2/06/2023.
Costs of this suit are awarded to the applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#Certificate of order for costs issued 2/06/2023 but the motion is dated 6/10/2023 while the pleading narrative says the applicant's advocates received the certificate on 12/06/2023 and demanded settlement within 21 days from a letter of the same date; the motion date and the 'unresponsive' letter of 12/06/2023 precede the pleaded service date, a minor internal chronology inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Twilight Investments Limited v Machakos Investment Promotion Board & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 782 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated 6/10/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/782/eng@2025-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.