Republic v County Executive Committee Member, Finance & Economic Affairs, Nairobi City County & 2 others; Tom Ojienda & Associates (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E138 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 789 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered Nairobi City County to pay a law firm over Kshs.61 million within seven days or face contempt proceedings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus should issue to compel the respondents to settle the taxed advocate-client costs and interest
Mandamus was granted; the respondents, having been served with the amended decree and certificate of order against the government, were under a statutory duty under section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act to pay, and their failure left mandamus as the efficacious remedy.
The court applied the Gathenji principles that mandamus issues to compel performance of a statutory public duty. The applicant obtained a certificate of taxation of Kshs.43,582,145.40 and a certificate of order against the government dated 3rd July 2024, served on the respondents on 11th July 2024. Despite reminders, the respondents failed and refused to pay. Under section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act the accounting officer is obliged to pay the certified amount with interest; non-compliance after proper service justified the writ.
Legal principles established
#- Mandamus compels performance of a public duty imposed by statute where the duty-holder has failed to perform it to the detriment of a party with a legal right to its performance.
- Where a certificate of order against the government is served on the accounting officer and payment is not made, mandamus will issue to compel payment.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus compelling the respondents to pay the ex parte applicant within seven (7) days the decretal amount of Kshs.43,582,145.40/= plus interest at 14% per annum (309 days) of Kshs.17,938,411.00/=, totalling Kshs.61,520,556.40/=
- 2.In default, notice to show cause to issue against the respondents why they should not be cited for contempt of court orders
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the ex parte applicant, to be borne jointly by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (judicial review, leave granted 18th June 2025)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Executive Committee Member, Finance & Economic Affairs, Nairobi City County & 2 others; Tom Ojienda & Associates (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E138 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 789 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (arising from ELC Case No. 819 of 2021; Afrison Export Import Limited & Another v The City Council of Nairobi & Another). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/789/eng@2026-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.