Njoroge & 2 others v County Government of Nairoві & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2861 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ordered Nairobi County to pay a Kshs 5.4 million court decree, ruling that budget delays are no excuse for avoiding court orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus lies to compel payment of a decree against a county government notwithstanding the budgetary process
Mandamus issued against the Accounting Officer to satisfy the decretal sum and costs, as the applicant had complied with all conditions precedent to enforcement and the Respondents' budgetary-cycle excuse could not justify continued non-payment
The court applied the Gathenji principles that mandamus compels performance of a public duty where a specific legal right exists. The applicant had taxed costs, obtained a decree and a certificate of order against the Government, and served it. The Respondents conceded the debt remained unpaid but attributed delay to the Public Finance Management Act budgetary process. Relying on precedent, the court held that a decree is a command, not a suggestion, and that non-allocation of funds is not a lawful excuse absent evidence of concrete steps towards settlement.
Legal principles established
#- Budgetary constraints or lack of allocation cannot by themselves justify the failure by Government entities to satisfy lawful court decrees
- Once a Certificate of Order against the Government is issued and served under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, a statutory duty arises requiring the accounting officer to satisfy the decree
- Payment of a lawful decree is not conditional upon budgetary allocation or parliamentary approval
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus issued against the Accounting Officer of the 1st Respondent to comply with the judgment and decree in Nairobi ELC Petition No. 4 of 2018 Anthony Njoroge & 2 Others v County Government of Nairobi and the Attorney General for settlement of the decretal sum of Kshs 4,947,400.00 and costs of Kshs 497,882.00 to the 2nd Applicant
- 2.The 1st and 2nd Respondents shall bear the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 Rules 3(1)(2)(3)&(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, following leave granted on 23rd July 2025 to commence judicial review proceedings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & 2 others v County Government of Nairoві & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2861 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nairobi ELC Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 12th August 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2861/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.