Republic v County Government of Embu & 2 others Ex Parte Mannyonge Wanyama & Associates Advocates [2019] KEELRC 227 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether delay by the Respondents in settling taxed costs justified mandamus
The Respondents delayed in settling the debt due under the taxed advocate-client bills and no compelling reason was advanced against the order; mandamus issued
The court traced the chronology: bills filed 24 October 2018, taxed 28 November 2018, certificate issued 16 January 2019, yet payment was not made and the Respondents only asked for a stay of proceedings pending inclusion in their budget. Adopting Black's Law Dictionary's definition of delay as the act of postponing or slowing, the court held the Respondents had delayed. No compelling reason against the orders was advanced in the response, so mandamus was issued for payment within 30 days.
Whether mandamus is barred by the immunity from execution against government
Mandamus is not an execution proceeding; it compels a government official to perform a statutory duty and is the only recourse for realizing a judgment against the Government
Relying on the Italbuild authority, the court accepted that an advocate cannot execute against the Government, and mandamus is the means of compelling the Accounting Officer to pay out of funds provided by Parliament. Payment of a decreed sum is not conditional on budgetary allocation, and access to justice under Article 48 requires that persons in whose favour judgments are decreed enjoy the fruits of their judgments.
Legal principles established
#- Where a public officer or government entity delays in settling a debt arising from taxed costs, mandamus may issue to compel performance of the duty to pay
- Mandamus lies to compel a government official to perform a duty Parliament has decreed, notwithstanding the bar on execution against the Government
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Mandamus issued directed at the Respondents jointly and severally to pay the ex parte Applicant taxed costs of Kshs. 437,960.91 in respect of Cause No. 279 of 2016, Kshs. 676,535.19 in respect of Cause No. 280 of 2016 and Kshs. 552,618.21 in respect of Cause No. 281 of 2016 within 30 days of the order
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction to issue the prerogative order of mandamus; Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act; Article 48 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Embu & 2 others Ex Parte Mannyonge Wanyama & Associates Advocates [2019] KEELRC 227 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review Motions dated 25th July 2019 (arising from Nyeri ELRC Causes Nos. 279, 280 and 281 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/227/eng@2019-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.