Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedJudicial Review Application arising from Chamber Summons dated 16th December, 2022· [2023] KEELRC 999 (KLR)

Karanja &154 others v Muigai Wainaina, Secretary, Nyandarua County Government & another (Judicial Review E007 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 999 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 May 2023
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,999 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered Nyandarua County to pay Kshs 337,800 in legal costs, but interest was limited because the applicant never proved he served the certificate of costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicant, a successful litigant in Nakuru ELRC Cause no. 433 of 2016, obtained leave on 24th January 2023 to apply for an order of mandamus compelling the County Government of Nyandarua to pay advocates' taxed costs of Kshs 337,800 awarded on 12th June 2018, with interest from that date, which by then had accumulated to a claimed Kshs 550,614. The applicant asserted that the certificate of costs and a certificate of order against the Government were duly served but payment was refused. The respondent, through its County Secretary, opposed the application, contending that the certificate of costs was only extracted on 24th February 2023 and never served earlier; that the county budget for 2022/2023 was already passed; and that under the Public Finance Management Act the costs would be factored into the 2023/2024 budget. In written submissions the respondent disputed the certification of the copy of the certificate and the fact of service. The court found that the applicant had established issuance of a certificate of costs signed on 16th April 2019 by the Deputy Registrar, ELRC, for Kshs 337,800, and that there was no indication of payment. However, it found no evidence of service of that certificate on the respondents. It held that the costs were payable but interest could only be levied upon notification, awarding interest only from the date of filing the application. The respondents were ordered to pay the taxed costs with that interest and to pay the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established entitlement to the taxed costs

Holding

The court found that a certificate of costs signed on 16.4.2019 by the Deputy Registrar, ELRC for Kshs 337,800 was issued and that the amount had not been paid, so mandamus was warranted

Reasoning

The court examined the certificate annexed as APP DW1 and found it was duly issued by the Deputy Registrar, ELRC. It noted there was no indication the amount had since been paid. The applicant had therefore followed the procedure for enforcing a decree against the Government under the Government Proceedings Act, and the costs being undisputed, an order of mandamus issued.

p. 4
02

Whether interest accrued from 12th June 2018

Holding

Interest was awarded only from the date of filing the application because the applicant did not prove service of the certificate of costs on the respondents

Reasoning

Although the costs were payable, the court found no evidence annexed by the applicants showing that the certificate of costs was served on the respondents. Since interest could only be levied upon notification, it was confined to the period from the filing of the application rather than the full period claimed from 12th June 2018.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Interest on taxed costs against a government entity can only be levied once the party liable has been notified through service of the certificate of costs
  • The Government enjoys no special privilege in respect of liability to pay decrees, only as to mode of execution, which is by mandamus against the accounting officer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to pay the advocates' taxed costs of Kshs 337,800 awarded by the court
  2. 2.Interest on the taxed costs to run with effect from the date of filing the application (12th June 2018-to-date interest refused for the pre-application period)
  3. 3.The respondents to pay costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Public Finance Management Act2012
  • Evidence Actsections 66, 68 and 83
  • Government Proceedings Actsections 21(1), (2), (3) and (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Miguna Miguna v Fred Matiang'i, Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government & 8 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • B vs. Attorney General
    [2004] 1 KLR 431
  • Greenwood Printers & Stationers Ltd v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
    [2022] eKLR
  • Republic Vs Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and internal Security Exparte Fredrick Manoah Igunza
    [2012] eKLR
  • Re estate of Charles Ndegwa Kiragu Alias Ndegwa Kiragu – Deceased
    [2016] eklr
  • Maggy Agulo Construction Co Ltd V Ministry of Public Health & 4 others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Republic v County Secretary Migori County Government & another
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Leave granted to apply for an Order of mandamus (judicial review jurisdiction) to enforce a certificate of order against the Government under the Government Proceedings Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja &154 others v Muigai Wainaina, Secretary, Nyandarua County Government & another (Judicial Review E007 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Judicial Review Application arising from Chamber Summons dated 16th December, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/999/eng@2023-05-02

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