Maina & another v Nairobi City County (Judicial Review E016 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Nairobi City County to pay Kshs 1.5 million owed on a 2019 judgment, ruling that failure to budget is no excuse for not paying.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether mandamus should issue to compel the respondent to satisfy the decree
Mandamus issued compelling the respondent to pay the decretal sum plus interest and costs
The court found that judgment was delivered in 2019, no appeal was filed and the decree was never set aside, so it ought to have been settled. The respondent's only explanation was budgetary constraints and a general willingness to pay, which the court held could not be taken seriously because funds must be budgeted for. Relying on Kisya Investments and the Koroso decision, the court held there was no alternative remedy and refusing mandamus would leave the applicants with a mere paper judgment.
Whether failure to budget for the decretal sum is a valid defence
No; budgetary constraints do not excuse non-payment of a decree
The respondent's Chief Officer Finance deponed that the sums were not provided for in the current financial year budget because the demand was received after the budget was made. The court rejected this as a blanket proposition, noting the case dated from 2014 and the respondent should have given concrete proposals for settlement. Vague averments that payment would follow budgeting could not defeat the applicants' right to the fruit of their judgment.
Legal principles established
#- A judgment debtor, including a county government, bears a duty to honour a judgment, and public interest includes the applicant's right to realise the fruit of its judgment
- Mandamus lies against a public authority where no other legal remedy is open to the decree holder to execute a judgment
- A claim that a decretal sum was not budgeted for does not excuse non-payment; vague promises to pay when funds are available cannot be taken seriously
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus to compel the respondent to comply with the decree and certificate of order and to pay the applicants Kshs 1,508,245/97 being the decretal sum and interest as well as the costs of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court/ELRC to compel compliance with a decree by order of mandamus against a county government
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina & another v Nairobi City County (Judicial Review E016 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC NAIROBI Claim No. 378 of 2014 (application dated 4th May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2414/eng@2024-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.