Ochieng Oginga and Company Advocates v County Government of Kisii & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2825 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered Kisii County to pay a law firm KShs 23.45 million in taxed legal fees by 31 August 2026, ruling budget constraints cannot excuse unpaid court decrees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus should issue to compel the Respondents to pay the taxed advocate-client costs
Mandamus issued. The bill was taxed, the Respondents admitted the debt, demand had been made, and no other adequate remedy existed against a county government.
The Court applied the test for mandamus from Schon Noorani and KNEC v Republic ex parte Gathenji Njoroge. The decree arose from a ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction and was neither stayed nor set aside. The Respondents conceded the amount was due and sought only more time. The Respondents' claims of budgetary constraints and Controller of Budget guidelines were unsupported by details or directions, and could not displace the legal duty to settle a lawful decree. Given the absence of alternative enforcement against a county government, mandamus was the appropriate remedy, with a payment deadline accommodated to the budget cycle.
Whether budgetary constraints and Controller of Budget guidelines excuse non-payment of a court decree
No. Such considerations do not extinguish or vary the legal duty to settle a lawful decree.
The Respondents asserted they were prioritising older claims and relying on guidelines from the Controller of Budget. The Court found these assertions unsupported - no details of the older claims or the sums due in each were given, and no directions from the Controller of Budget were annexed. Even if such directions existed, they could not override a decree issued by a court of law. The Court nonetheless accommodated the budget cycle by extending the payment deadline.
Legal principles established
#- Directions from the Controller of Budget do not override a decree issued by a court of law
- Settlement of a lawful decree against a public body is not a discretionary matter; the public body owes a public legal duty to pay
- A decree against a county government cannot be enforced by attachment of assets or committal to civil jail, leaving mandamus as the adequate remedy
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to pay or cause to be paid to the Applicant KShs 23,451,319.8
- 2.The sum to be paid in full on or before the 31st day of August 2026; in default, the Applicant may take out a Notice to Show Cause against the Respondents
- 3.The Applicant to have costs of these proceedings and interest thereon at Court rates
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court (leave granted 5th December 2025); decree enforcement against a county government established under Articles 6 and 176 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochieng Oginga and Company Advocates v County Government of Kisii & 2 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application - Notice of Motion dated 5th December 2025 (Nyamira ELCLR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2825/eng@2026-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.