Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedJudicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. E023 of 2021 (Nakuru ELRC Judicial Review)· [2021] KEELRC 37 (KLR)

Republic v County Government of Nakuru & another Ex parte James Mwangi Muraya [2021] KEELRC 37 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 December 2021
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,199 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ordered Nakuru County to pay a worker's judgment debt after three years of excuses, showing budget delays don't beat court orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant, James Mangi Muraya, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2020 seeking an order of mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent to comply with the decree issued by Radido J in Nakuru ELRC Cause No. 124 of 2016 (judgment of Kshs. 617,432.60 with costs and interest), together with the certificate of costs and certificate of Order for costs against the Government issued on 27th May 2020. The applicant averred that the decree was served in March 2018 and the certificates in May 2020, but the respondents refused to satisfy the decree. The respondents, through an accountant, acknowledged the decree and service but explained that the 2020/2021 budget had closed when the certificate was served and the decretal sum had been factored into the next financial year; they contended the suit was premature. Both parties filed written submissions, the applicant relying on the Koroso and Meru county decisions and the respondents relying on the Oranga decision and section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. The court found that the respondents never denied the judgment or service of the decree, and had taken no steps to satisfy it since 2018 despite asserting budgetary provision. The court held that the respondents had neglected to make good the judgment, dismissed the budgetary-closure excuse, allowed the application, and issued the mandamus as sought, with costs of the application to the applicant. Judgment delivered on 7th December 2021 by Wasilwa J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether mandamus lies to compel the county government to satisfy the decree

Holding

Yes - the applicant proved the decree and service, and the respondents took no steps to satisfy it; mandamus was merited.

Reasoning

The applicant obtained a judgment and decree of Kshs. 617,432.60 and served the decree in 2018 and the certificates of order against the Government in May 2020. The respondents did not deny issuance of the judgment or service, nor did they show any steps taken to satisfy the decree since 2018; their only explanation was lack of budgetary provision, yet no payment had been made by 2021. The court found neglect and granted mandamus with costs.

p. 2
02

Whether the application was premature given budgetary constraints and late service of the certificate of order

Holding

No - delayed budgetary provision is not sufficient ground to deny an applicant the fruits of judgment.

Reasoning

The respondents argued the certificate was served after the 2020/2021 budget closed and the decretal sum was factored into the next financial year. The court was not persuaded: the decree had been served since 2018 and the respondents demonstrated no steps taken to satisfy it, so delay in budgeting did not excuse non-compliance and did not render the suit premature.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A government body served with a decree and certificate of order against the Government which fails to take steps to satisfy the decree may be compelled by mandamus.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An Order of MANDAMUS directed against the Respondents compelling the 2nd Respondent to fully comply with the decree issued by Hon. Radido (J) in Nakuru ELRC Cause No. 124 of 2016 on 28th February 2018, together with the certificate of costs and certificate of Order for costs Against the Government issued on 27th May 2020
  2. 2.The Respondents to cater for the costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Government Proceedings Actsection 21

Cases cited (3)

  • Republic v Attorney General and another Ex parte James Alfred Koroso
    [2013] eKLR
  • Republic v County Secretary County Government of Meru & 2 others Ex parte Andrew Wachira
    [2021] eKLR
  • Ernest B.M Oranga -v- Kakamega County Commissioner of Cooperatives and 6 others
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction (order of mandamus) under Government Proceedings Act section 21 to compel satisfaction of a decree

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Nakuru & another Ex parte James Mwangi Muraya [2021] KEELRC 37 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. E023 of 2021 (Nakuru ELRC Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/37/eng@2021-12-07

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.