Republic v Nairobi City County Government (Formerly City Council of Nairobi); Norkan Investments Limited (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4646 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant complied with the conditions precedent for mandamus under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
The Court found that the Applicant complied with all necessary notices: judgment was entered, costs taxed, a certificate of taxation and a certificate of order of costs against the Government were obtained and duly served on the Respondent, its advocates, the County Attorney and the Attorney General. The elaborate procedure for mandamus against the Government was satisfied.
The Court traced the Section 21 procedure, including issuance of a certificate after taxation, service on the Attorney-General, and the resulting statutory duty on the accounting officer to pay. Having perused the pleadings, it was satisfied that the necessary notices were complied with, the Respondent was aware of the demand, the sum remained due and payable, and the certificate of costs was not opposed.
Whether budgetary processes under the Public Finance Management Act excuse non-payment of a taxed and certified decree
The Court held that the statutory duty to pay under Section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act is not subject to budgetary processes or the complexities of the Respondent's financial systems. Budgetary compliance cannot be used to evade a debt obligation.
While acknowledging the prudence of complying with the PFMA and budgetary procedures, the Court found the Respondent did not deny being served with the certificate of costs or that the sum was due. Since the Act imposes an unconditional statutory duty on the accounting officer to pay once the certificate is served, budgetary constraints and stakeholder complexities could not justify continued non-payment.
Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy
The Court held mandamus was appropriate since the Applicant held a certificate of order against the Government and was barred from executing against government assets, leaving mandamus as the only remedy.
Applying the Gathenji and Egunza principles, the Court found the Applicant had a clear right to relief (a taxed certificate), an undisputed duty on the Respondent to comply, no adequate alternative remedy at law (execution being barred against government), and a demand followed by refusal or neglect. Mandamus is of an extensive remedial nature and issues where there is a specific legal right with no specific legal remedy to enforce it.
Legal principles established
#- Once a certificate of order against the Government is served on the Attorney-General, Section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act imposes a statutory duty on the accounting officer to pay, and this duty is not subject to budgetary allocation or parliamentary approval
- Compliance with a certificate of order for costs against a government is not conditional upon the government's budgetary processes
- A monetary decree against the government can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer to pay, as the government enjoys immunity from execution and attachment under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act
Court orders
#- 1.An order of judicial review in the nature of a mandamus to compel the Respondent's County Executive Finance & Economic Planning and the Chief Officer, Finance & Economic Planning to pay the Applicant Kshs 13,175,090/- being the taxed and certified costs awarded in ELC No 270 of 2009, together with interest at Court rates from the date of taxation until payment in full
- 2.In default of payment, a notice to show cause to issue against the Respondent's County Executive Finance & Economic Planning and the Chief Officer, Finance, why they should not be cited for contempt
- 3.The costs of and incidental to the application be borne by the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 7-11 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act; Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Nairobi City County Government (Formerly City Council of Nairobi); Norkan Investments Limited (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4646 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi Judicial Review Application (leave granted 3rd September 2024; number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4646/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.