Lago v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3911 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a claim for unpaid tribunal costs because the claimant skipped mandatory steps for enforcing decrees against the Government.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the firm of G & A Advocates LLP was properly on record for the Respondents
- 2.Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of the orders sought
- 3.Whether the constitutional reliefs sought were available in judicial review proceedings
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents' counsel was properly on record
G & A Advocates LLP was not properly on record for want of a Notice of Appointment; its filings were struck out
Order 9 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules confines right of audience to a party in person, a recognized agent, or a duly appointed advocate. No Notice of Appointment appeared on the Case Tracking System, so the firm lacked authority; its Grounds of Opposition and Submissions were expunged and the Applicant's allegations left uncontroverted.
Whether constitutional declarations and damages were available in the judicial review proceedings
No; those reliefs exceed judicial review and were also impermissibly vague, failing the Anarita Karimi and Mumo Matemu standard of precision
Judicial review interrogates legality, procedural propriety and rationality of administrative action, whereas constitutional litigation determines alleged violations of fundamental rights. Claims of violation must be pleaded with reasonable degree of precision. Further, constitutional avoidance applies where alternative statutory mechanisms exist.
Whether the conditions for mandamus under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act were satisfied
No; the Applicant failed to prove service of the Certificate of Order against the Government and related documents on the Attorney General, so the statutory duty under Section 21(3) had not crystallized and mandamus was premature
Section 21(1) and (2) require issue and service of a certificate of order against the Government on the Attorney General as a condition precedent; Section 21(4) bars execution otherwise. The Applicant's emails were not supported by delivery receipts or an affidavit of service as required by Order 5 Rule 22B, and the Hawkind Corporation case was distinguished because no delivery receipt was annexed and the Attorney General never acknowledged the email address used.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant seeking to enforce a decree against the Government must strictly comply with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, including service of the Certificate of Order against the Government on the Attorney General, before alleging constitutional violation or seeking mandamus
- Service by electronic mail is effected only when the sender receives a delivery receipt, which must be exhibited and proved through an Affidavit of Service; printing a sent email is insufficient
- A party may appear in court only in person, by a recognized agent, or by an advocate duly appointed; without a Notice of Appointment on record, a firm's pleadings may be expunged and the allegations treated as uncontroverted
Court orders
#- 1.The Grounds of Opposition and Submissions filed by G & A Advocates LLP on behalf of the Respondents are struck out/expunged as the firm was not properly on record
- 2.The entire Originating Motion is struck out as incompetent, premature and misconceived
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(2) and (3), 47(1) and (2), 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act; Section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act; Rule 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024
Relief refused
#Declarations of violation of Articles 10, 47(1), 47(2) and 232 of the Constitution and breach of the Fair Administrative Actions Act
Constitutional reliefs transcend judicial review proceedings and required a properly instituted constitutional petition pleaded with precision
Order of mandamus compelling payment of KShs. 357,973/= plus interest at 14% per annum
Applicant failed to prove service of the Certificate of Order against the Government and related documents on the Attorney General as required by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act; no delivery receipts or affidavit of service exhibited
Compensatory damages for violation of Article 47(1)
Constitutional avoidance; delay in payment of taxed costs does not automatically translate into a constitutional violation where the statutory enforcement procedure was not first complied with
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs in the application
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.
Accordingly, the documents they purportedly filed on behalf of the respondents are hereby struck out or expunged: they are be treated as though they were never filed, in the first place.
Thus, having also found that the prayers for the constitutional reliefs sought are untenable, then the whole Originating Motion is incompetent, premature and misconceived and is hereby struck out.
Thus, the application having been deemed as not having been properly opposed, then each party shall bear their own costs in the application.
A court will only issue an order of mandamus if it is shown that the requirements under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act have been fulfilled.
Service shall be deemed to have been effected when the sender receives a delivery report
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment inconsistently refers to the Applicant by both genders ('She sought orders' / 'the appellant, is at violation of his rights'; 'the Applicant maintained that he did not have another avenue through which she could enforce')
Inconsistent references to the underlying tribunal, called both 'Land Adjudication Tribunal (LAT)' and 'Land Acquisition Tribunal', and inconsistent certificate dates (16th April 2025 vs 'certificate of order against the Government, dated 16th April 2024')
Submissions describe appeals as altering the judgment ('the court only set aside an award of KShs. 200,000/= and substituted it with Kshs.3,000,000/=') while the applicant elsewhere states the decree 'had never been set aside and or varied'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lago v Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigation Authority & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3911 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR E003 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3911/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.