Republic v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 3 others; Muchene (The Sole Executrix of the Estate of George Muchene Kirumba and Petitioning through Nancy Wanjiru Kirumba) (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4928 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered government officials to pay a landowner KShs 3 million, ruling that lack of budget allocation is no excuse for delaying court-ordered payments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus should issue to compel payment of the decretal sum against the government
Yes; the certificate of order against the government was obtained and served, and mandamus is the most adequate remedy to compel the accounting officers to pay the decretal amount.
The court adopted the Gathenji principles that mandamus compels performance of a public duty. Under section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act, service of the certificate of order on the Attorney General triggers a statutory duty on the accounting officer to pay, which is not dependent on budgetary provision. The applicant held a decree and certificate of order against the government, served them, and the respondents did not dispute service. Denying mandamus would leave her without an effective remedy and cause grave injustice.
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 payment is not conditioned on budgetary allocation.
- Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to enforce decrees against government, which enjoys immunity from execution under section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus compelling the Accounting Officers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay the ex parte applicant KShs. 3,000,000/- being the decretal amount payable as ordered in ELC Petition No. 14 of 2017
- 2.The 4th respondent ordered to pursue compliance with order 1
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the ex parte applicant
- 4.Mention on 24th September, 2025 to confirm payment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 3 others; Muchene (The Sole Executrix of the Estate of George Muchene Kirumba and Petitioning through Nancy Wanjiru Kirumba) (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4928 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2024 (ELC Petition No. 14 of 2017 decree). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4928/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.