Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedJudicial Review Application arising from ELC Suit No. 547 of 2013 (Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2024)· [2025] KEELC 3105 (KLR)

Chumo v County Government of Nairobi & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3105 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 March 2025
TMT. Murigi
2,748 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2024 in which Irene Joyce Chumo, as Ex Parte Applicant, sought an order of mandamus compelling the County Government of Nairobi and the County Secretary to pay her a decretal sum of Kshs 1,883,000/= plus interest and taxed costs of Kshs 253,386.65/=, arising from a judgment delivered on 21st January 2021 in ELC Suit No. 547 of 2013 for the unlawful demolition of a detached servant quarter on her suit property. The Respondents opposed, arguing through a replying affidavit of Boniface Waweru, Director of Civil Litigation, that payment was constrained by the budgeting procedures under Section 125 of the Public Finance Management Act, that all county expenditure requires County Assembly appropriation, and that a Motion had been moved to provide for the decretal sum in the 2024/2025 supplementary budget. The court identified a single issue: whether the Applicant was entitled to the orders sought. Applying Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and the mandamus principles in ex parte Gathenji, Schon Noorani and ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egungza, the court held that the accounting officer is under a statutory duty to satisfy judgments against government despite the bar on execution, and that the Applicant's unheeded demands amounted to an implied refusal to pay. Budgetary processes could not defeat the decree, government being obliged to make contingency provisions for its liabilities each financial year. The application was allowed, mandamus issued compelling payment of the decretal sum with interest and taxed costs, and the Applicant was awarded costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents are under a duty to pay the subject decretal sums

Holding

Yes. A judgment and taxed costs against the 1st Respondent created a clear legal duty; the Applicant made demands that went unheeded, amounting to implied refusal, and mandamus issued.

Reasoning

The court applied Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, under which no execution lies against government but the accounting officer is statutorily obliged to satisfy court-ordered payments. Relying on the mandamus principles in ex parte Gathenji, Schon Noorani and ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egungza, the court found a public legal duty owed to the Applicant, a clear right, prior demand and implied refusal through delay, and no adequate alternative remedy. Budgetary constraints and pending appropriation could not excuse non-payment, as government must make contingency provisions for its liabilities each financial year.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Whereas execution proceedings are not available against the Government, the accounting officer for the Government department concerned is under a statutory duty to satisfy a judgment made by the Court against that department.
  • A claim that a decree-holder against government must wait until the next financial year for budgetary appropriation cannot stand; government must make contingency provisions for its liabilities so successful litigants are not left without remedy.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued to compel the Respondents to pay the Ex parte Applicant the decretal sum of Kshs 1,888,000/= together with interest and costs of Kshs. 253,386.65/=.
  2. 2.The Ex Parte Applicant is awarded costs of the application.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Government Proceedings ActSection 21(1), (2), (3), (4)
  • Public Finance Management ActSection 103, Section 103(3), Section 125
  • Public Management and Asset Disposal Actnot specified

Cases cited (10)

  • Mobile Kitale Service Station v Mobil Oil Kenya Ltd & Another
    (2004) eKLR
  • Republic v County Government of Kiambu Ex Parte Laban J Macharia Muiruri
    (2021) eKLR
  • Republic v County Speaker Narok County Government & another Ex parte SEC & M Company Limited
    (2022) eKLR
  • Republic v Kenya National Examination Council ex parte Gathenji and 9 others
    null
  • Republic vs. Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathengi & 8 Others
    Civil Appeal No 234 of 1996
  • Republic vs Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & another ex parte Schon Noorani & Another
    [2018] eKLR
  • R (Regina) vs. Dudsheath, ex parte, Meredith
    [1950] 2 All E.R. 741
  • Republic vs. Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security & Another ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egungza
    null
  • Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund vs Micheal Mwaloi
    (2015) eKLR
  • Republic v County Secretary Nairobi City County & Another
    (2023) KEELC 20391 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over orders of mandamus against government entities, pursuant to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and the law of mandamus

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chumo v County Government of Nairobi & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application arising from ELC Suit No. 547 of 2013 (Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3105/eng@2025-03-26

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