Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Lago (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E047 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court declined to award costs against a government agency that paid a decree within six months, ruling the delay was bureaucratic, not blameworthy.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who should bear the costs of the suit, given that the mandamus was rendered moot by payment of the decretal sum during the pendency of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Ex parte Applicant, whose mandamus application was rendered moot by payment during its pendency, is entitled to costs from the Respondents
Each party was directed to bear its own costs; the delay in payment was attributable to bureaucratic processes and no prejudice was shown
The court accepted that costs follow the event under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act but found this to be a fit case for departure. The decretal sum and costs from the underlying miscellaneous cause were paid within six months of the certificate of order against the government. The 2nd Respondent is a government agency subject to bureaucratic disbursement processes, the Applicant suffered no demonstrated prejudice, and the application was not opposed. The court associated itself with the authorities cited on judicially-exercised discretion.
Legal principles established
#- Costs are discretionary but follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders
- Where a party seeks to enforce payment of money against a government agency, they must first apply for a writ of mandamus
- Costs can only be withheld from a successful party for good cause shown
Court orders
#- 1.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- 2.Suit previously marked as settled on 26th February 2026 following payment of Kshs.50,000/= to the Ex parte Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under leave granted on 9th October 2025 (specific constitutional/statutory provision not stated); costs governed by section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Costs of the suit awarded against the Respondents
Payment was made within six months of the certificate of order; the delay was attributable to bureaucratic processes in a government agency and the Applicant suffered no prejudice; the application was not opposed
Costs
Each party bears their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the foregoing, while associating myself with the decisions cited, noting that the instant application was not opposed, I direct that each party bears their own costs.
It is trite that where a party seeks costs against a government agency, they have to apply for a writ of mandamus first.
the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.
The claims of the public interest will be a relevant factor, in the exercise of such discretion, as will also be the motivations and conduct of the parties, prior-to, during, and subsequent-to the actual process of litigation
Issues in the judgment
#The date of payment is stated inconsistently within the judgment - once as 15th December 2025 and once as 18th December 2025
The underlying miscellaneous cause number is stated inconsistently - E173 of 2024 in the submissions section and E169 of 2024 in the analysis section
The case number of the present judicial review proceedings is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another; Lago (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E047 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review (leave granted 9th October 2025) - case number not stated. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3316/eng@2026-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.