Republic v Kenya Airports Authority & another; Shabune (Ex parte Applicant) (Miscellaneous Application E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5583 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered Kenya Airports Authority to pay Kshs. 9.15 million plus 12% interest within 60 days for unlawfully acquired land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st respondent failed to perform its statutory duty to pay the decretal sum
Yes - the 1st respondent, a body corporate, failed, neglected and refused to process and pay the decretal sum despite being served with the decree, certificate of costs and certificate of order, contrary to Article 10 national values
The applicant extracted and served the decree, certificate of costs and certificate of order on the respondents, who did not controvert service in their replying affidavit. No stay, review or settlement negotiation existed to excuse non-payment; the pendency of an appeal is not a stay. Failure to pay a lawful decree offends Article 10 national values binding on all persons and state organs.
Whether the applicant established sufficient cause for mandamus against a statutory body
Yes - since the 1st respondent is insulated from ordinary execution, mandamus is the only mechanism to enforce the decree, and the applicant demonstrated a clear legal right, a public duty and a prior demand
The court applied the Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge principles: mandamus compels performance of a public duty imposed by statute where the person entitled has no other effective remedy. The respondents' contentions on the NLC valuation and non-joinder of the Accounting Officer under section 5 of the Kenya Airports Authority Act did not excuse non-compliance with an unchallenged decree; compliance with court orders is mandatory (Hadkinson).
Whether the decree was vitiated by a valuation undertaken without involvement of the National Land Commission
No - the 1st respondent cannot disregard the decree on this basis; if it considers the decree irregular, it knows the proper legal avenue
The respondents argued that the compensation was founded on a valuation procured without NLC involvement contrary to section 111(2) of the Land Act and the Land (Assessment of Just Compensation) Rules 2017. The court held that the decree was not appealed, impugned, set aside, and an application for leave to appeal out of time had been dismissed; it is not for the suitor to judge the validity of a judgment or decree.
Legal principles established
#- Where a public body is statutorily insulated from ordinary execution, mandamus is the only mechanism to compel performance of its public duty including payment of debts
- A judgment debtor must comply with the terms of a judgment unless there is a compelling reason such as a stay, review, or settlement negotiations; pendency of an appeal is not a stay
- A party cannot disregard a decree on the ground that the underlying valuation was irregular; the validity of a decree is a matter for the court, not the suitor
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Judicial review in the nature of Mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the Ex-parte Applicant Kshs.9,153,124/- being the decretal amount together with interest at the court rate of 12% per annum from the date of award until payment in full, issued against the 1st respondent (Kenya Airports Authority)
- 2.The payment shall be processed and paid out to the Ex-parte Applicant within 60 days from the date of the order, in default the Ex-parte Applicant at liberty to take appropriate steps including citation for contempt
- 3.Costs of the proceedings awarded to the Ex-parte Applicant
- 4.Such costs to be agreed upon and in default to be taxed by the Deputy Registrar of the court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (orders of mandamus); enforcement of a decree against a public body insulated from execution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kenya Airports Authority & another; Shabune (Ex parte Applicant) (Miscellaneous Application E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application (Substantive Notice of Motion) dated 9th April 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5583/eng@2025-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.