Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Government Constituency Development Fund Committee & 2 others; Ngari (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E056 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 566 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered CDF officials to pay a judgment creditor over Kshs. 40 million within 14 days after years of non-payment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the elaborate procedure under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act was complied with before seeking mandamus
Yes. Service of the certificate of order was effected on the 1st respondent and, through their advocates' email, on the 2nd and 3rd respondents; the cause of action for mandamus had accrued.
The court adopted the principles that mandamus against the Government requires compliance with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, including issuance of certificate of costs and certificate of order and a demand for payment. It found service on the 1st respondent undisputed and service on the 2nd and 3rd respondents effected via email to their advocates' active email address, uncontroverted by any contrary evidence.
Whether misnaming the 1st respondent (Committee instead of Board) rendered the application defective
No, the wrong citation of a corporate body was not fatal.
The deponent described himself as corporation secretary of the Board while the application addressed the CEO of the Committee; the court treated the discrepancy as an error in the last word only. Guided by Article 159(2) of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, it held the misdescription non-fatal since service had been effected, and mandamus could issue against the 1st respondent.
Whether service on the Attorney General was necessary
No, because the respondents are bodies corporate, not government ministries.
The court held the respondents do not form part of any government ministry but are bodies corporate capable of suing and being sued independently, relying on the decision in Ikon Prints Media where it was held that a state corporation funded by government is still not government for purposes of the Government Proceedings Act. The Attorney General was therefore not a necessary party.
Legal principles established
#- A mandamus order compels execution of a public duty imposed by statute where the duty-holder has neglected it, prejudicing a party with a legal entitlement to its performance.
- Wrong citation of a corporate body is not fatal to an application under the overriding objective.
- A state corporation is not automatically subject to the Government Proceedings Act and service on the Attorney General is not necessary where the corporation is a body corporate.
- Valid court orders must be honoured absent any appeal or stay.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus be issued to compel the Respondents to pay the Ex parte Applicant the decretal sum together with interest thereon of Kshs. 38,217,552/= due on account of the judgment delivered on 17th November 2017 in ELC No. 8 of 2015
- 2.An order compelling the Respondents to pay the Ex-parte Applicant the taxed costs together with interest thereon of Kshs. 1,799,275/= due on account of the Certificate of Taxation dated 3rd September 2019 in ELC No 8 of 2015
- 3.The Respondents ordered to comply by satisfying the Certificate of Order in the sum of Kshs. 38,217,552/= together with accruing interest in ELC No. 8 of 2015 within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order of mandamus
- 4.The costs of the application be borne by the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (order of mandamus), Civil Procedure Act sections 1A and 1B; underlying decree in ELC No. 8 of 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Government Constituency Development Fund Committee & 2 others; Ngari (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E056 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 566 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 29th November 2024 (arising from ELC No. 8 of 2015 – Samwel Ngari Githinji v National Constituency Development Fund Board & Dagoretti South Constituency Development Fund Committee). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/566/eng@2026-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.